Socialism exposed and refuted

w *
•&

$&-

ws.jp-

•'•'A

%m

,

<mm

:$
; *M$

.

/-

v

• >**Ji, 3Stir* -?*xl* >«*. v2

'M

» ^^L •**•?"' iJ*'-'

%

LIBRARY

ST. MICHAELS COLLEGE

SOCIALISM

EXPOSED AND REFUTED.

REV. VICTOR CATHREIN, S.J.

9
I

A Chapter from the Author s Moral/ Philosophy.

[From the German.]
BY

REV. JAMES CONWAY, S.J.

NEW YORK, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO:
IGER BROTHKRS.

FOR SALE BY B. HERDER, ST. LOUIS.
1892.

Copyright, 1892, by BENZIGER BROTHERS.

INfflJUTE OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES
LEY PLACE

•'SK

TOfcOfflOjOK,

DEC 2'

PREFACE.

THE following pages form a chapter of the author's
famous work on " Moral Philosophy." It was pub-
lished separately in the original, and met with the
most cordial reception. Not only were five large
editions called for in less than two years, but trans-
lations were published in French, Italian, Spanish,
Polish, and Flemish, which promise to rival the
original in popularity. It has become a work of
truly international fame.

The chief value of this little work is in the fact
that it goes to the true sources of socialism, whether
considered as a scientific economic theory or as a
living social and political movement. There is noth-
ing second-hand about it. The author did not
shrink from the toil of examining the most volumi-
nous and abstruse works as well as the ephemeral
productions of the daily press and of socialistic ora-
tory. Socialists themselves give him credit for hav-
ing interpreted their meaning and their aims more
faithfully and accurately than some of their own
followers.

It is this accurate interpretation of the principles
and policy of socialism that gives a universal and
permanent value to Father Cathrein's treatise. So-

2 Preface.

cialism is the same all the world over. It is the
translation of German social democracy and its ad-
aptation to the views of other civilized nations. It
is the theory of Marx, Bebel, and Liebknecht in
English, American, or some other foreign dress.
The Germans have the very questionable merit of
having given to modern socialism a systematic and
scientific form. Whatever there is in our English

o

and American socialistic life and literature is but an
importation, a plagiarism, or bad imitation of German
socialism. It is well, then, that a German, who has
carefully examined the genuine article on its native
soil, should become our guide in the study of this
peculiar phenomenon of social and economic life.

The method of treatment will speak for itself.
Forming a portion of a large scientific work, it is
necessarily condensed ; but it will be found, none
the less, to contain all that is worth knowing to the
general reader on the important subject of which it
treats. Some questions — as, for instance, the scope
and limits of civil power ; the notion, origin, and
lawfulness of property — have been omitted or only
briefly touched upon, because they had been treated
at full length in other parts of the work. Partly for
this same reason, and partly because the author does
not consider it as belonging to socialism strictly so
called, which forms the subject of this treatise, noth-
ing has been said of agrarian socialism, or the land
question. For the rest, the author's masterly refu-
tation of the land theories of Henry George and De
Laveleye is before the English-reading public under
the title of " The Champions of Agrarian Socialism "
(Buffalo, N. Y., Peter Paul & Bro.).

The present translation was made from the fourth

Preface. 3

German edition, but corrected and enlarged some-
what from the fifth edition. The editor, however,
being left entirely free to use his discretion in
getting out the English version, did not deem it de-
sirable to adopt all the additions of the latest German
edition, but only those that bear more directly upon
recent developments in the socialistic movement
(e.g., the Erfurt programme of 1891, p. 24, sq.). For
the rest, he was careful not to omit anything which
he deemed of importance for the full understanding
of the principles and tactics of socialists.

He confidently trusts that his humble painstaking
may at least to some extent help to arouse the Eng-
lish-speaking world to a sense of the grave dangers
that threaten society, that they may the more eagerly
grasp the right hand of safety held out to them in
the recent Encyclical (Rerum Novarum) by our Holy
Father Leo XIII.

WOODSTOCK COLLEGE,

August 31, 1892.

CONTENTS.

PAGE

PREFACE i

CHAPTER I.

NATURE AND DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIALISM.

Sec. I. Nature of Socialism. Its Relation to Com-
munism ....... 9

Sec. II. Development of Socialism . . . . 13

I. Socialism of Antiquity and of the Middle

Ages 13

II. The Chief Founders of Modern So-
cialism 14

III. The Present Phase of Socialism . . 21

CHAPTER II.

UNTENABLENESS OF THE PRINCIPLES OF SOCIALISM.

Sec. I. Philosophical and Religious Assumptions . 35

I. Equal Rights of all Men 35

II. Undue Emphasis of Industrial Life . 44

III. Materialistic View of Life ... 46

Sec. II. Economic Principles 53

I. Socialistic Theory of Value 53

II. The Iron Law of Wages 61

III. Liberalism the Root of the Evil . . 72
5

Contents.

CHAPTER III.

SOCIALISM IMPRACTICABLE.

PAGE

Sec. I. State of the Question 79

Sec. II. The Organization of Labor .... 85

I. Socialization of Productive Goods . 85
II. Mode of Determining the Social

Demand 88

III. Division of the Labor Forces . . 95
. IV. Distribution of Labor. Vocations . 99
V. Some Unsatisfactory Solutions . . 102
VI. Refutation of an Objection . . . 109
VII. Impossibility of the Social Organiza-
tion of Labor . . . . 1 1 1

Sec. III. Profit and Progress in Socialism . . .114

I. Socialistic Dreams . . . .114

II. Industry and Economy in Socialism . 116

III. Progress of the Socialistic State . . 121

IV. Arts and Sciences in Socialism . . 124

Sec. IV. The Division of Produce .... 130

I. Number of Persons as a Standard . 132

II. Labor-time as a Standard . . . 134

III. The Labor Performed as a Standard . 138

IV. Diligence as a Standard . . . 142

V. The Wants of Individuals as a Stand-

ard 143

Contents. 7

PAGE

Sec. V. The Family in the Socialistic State . . 144

I. Marriage in the Socialistic State . . 144

II. Education and Instruction . . .150

Sec. VI. Some Objections Answered . . . .153

I. Communism in Religious Orders . . 153

II. Modern Industrial Organizations . . 155

III. The Modern Military System . . 157

IV. Stock Companies 158

CONCLUSION . 160

SOCIALISM.

CHAPTER I.
NATURE AND DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIALISM.

SECTION I.

NATURE OF SOCIALISM. ITS RELATION TO COM-
MUNISM.

COMMUNISM has a wider signification than socialism.
By communism in its wider sense we understand that
system of economics which advocates the abolition
of private property and the introduction of commu-
nity of goods, at least as far as capital, or means of
production, is concerned. Communism in this broad
sense admits of various forms, the chief of which
are the following :

i. Negative communism is restricted to the negation
of private property. According to this form of
communism all goods should equally be put at the
disposal of all. This species of communism, to our
knowledge, has never yet found a serious defender
among philosophers ; for it is evident that a sys-
tem which does not exclude others from the use of
those things which individuals have appropriated
to themselves would ruin all industry and bring
about a state of universal misery and utter disorder,

9

i o Nature and Development of Socialism.

For who would till a field if others were permitted
to come and reap the harvest ?

2. Extreme positive communism advocates the
transfer of all goods without exception to one great
common administration. All production and the
use of all goods should be common — common meals,
common dormitories, common hospitals, etc. This
system was advocated by some of the earlier com-
munists.

3. Moderate positive communism (also called an-
archism) advocates only the abolition of private
property as far as capital, or the materials of labor,
or productive goods in contradistinction to non-pro-
ductive goods, is concerned. These goods should
be handed over to the administration of independent
but confederate communities, or federations of labor
— not to the state. The founder and first leader of
this anarchist party was the Russian Bakunin (died

In France the followers of the system of indepen-
dent communities (communes] are called communists
— not to be confounded with communards, or the
members of the Commune of Paris in 1871 — although
not all of them advocate that property should be
vested in the communes. The defenders of this
system of communal property are also called anar-
chists, because they wish to exclude all central con-
trol of the state and vindicate political and econom-
ical independence to groups or unions of laborers.
These communes or groups, again, should, in their
mind, form a certain alliance somewhat resembling
the ancient Grecian republics. These anarchists,
however, are not to be confounded with those who
reject all political and social authority in the com-
munity or state. This latter anarchism manifestly

Its Relation to Communism. 1 1

cannot be constructed into any kind of political or
scientific system,

4. Socialistic communism, or simply socialism, ad-
vocates the transformation of all capital, or means of
labor, into the common property of society, or of
the state, and the administration of the produce
and the distribution of the proceeds by the state.
Since modern socialists, and chiefly the followers of
Karl Marx, have organized this system entirely
upon a democratic basis, they call themselves social
democrats, and their system social democracy. Social
democracy may be defined as that system of political
economy which advocates the inviolable ownership
of all capital, or materials of labor, by the state, as
also the public administration of all goods and the
distribution of all produce by the democratic state.

We call socialism a system of political economy,
not as if it did not also lead to many political and
social changes, but because the gist of socialism
consists in the nationalization of property and in the
public administration and distribution of all goods.
Socialism, at least as it is conceived by its modern
defenders, is in the first instance an economical system
and only secondarily and subordinately a political
system affecting society, the state, the family, etc.

Socialism has been defined as the political econ-
omy of the suffering classes,1 that is, " a philosophy
which in its nature and in the sentiments of con-
temporaries is actually the economic philosophy of
the suffering classes." But this definition, to say
the very least, is inadequate ; nay, we venture to
say, incorrect ; for it makes the nature of socialism
dependent upon a certain subjective view of men.

1 Schonberg's Handbuch der politischen Oekonomie, vol. I. p.
107.

1 2 Nature and Development of Socialism.

Even though all the socialists of to-day could be
convinced of the impracticability of their system and
made to abandon it, yet socialism would still remain"
a system though it no longer existed in the con-
sciousness of contemporaries. On the other hand,
the ideal state determined by Plato is in truth
socialistic, although his contemporaries considered
his theory as an idle dream. Moreover, if such a
definition were correct, the moderate economic sys-
tem which is advocated by conservative politicians
for the relief of the laborer and artisan would be
socialistic, which we cannot grant to be the case.

From our definition it is evident that every
socialist is a communist in the broader sense of the
term ; but not every communist is a socialist. It is
also manifest that neither in communism generally
nor in that special form of it which is called social-
ism is there any question of a general or of a
periodical distribution of goods. Communism is the
theoretical negation of private property, at least as
far as capital, or labor materials, is concerned. It
follows also that the so-called agrarian socialists,
who deny only the right of private property in
land, cannot simply be called socialists, although
they defend many principles which would logically
lead to the total abolition of private property. Nor
can those politicians and theorists who in principle
admit the right of private property, but in their
economical systems put the administration of private
property almost entirely into the hands of the state,
be confounded with true socialists.

Socialism of Antiquity and of the Middle Ages. 13
SECTION II.

DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIALISM.
I. Socialism of Antiquity and of the Middle Ages.

From the most ancient times we meet with cer-
tain partially communistic systems and institutions.
On the island of Crete we find a certain kind of
communism introduced as early as 1300 B.C., which
in later times Lycurgus took as his model for the
constitution of Sparta. This constitution seems to
have been Plato's ideal when he composed his work
entitled " The Republic," as also, though in a more
moderate form, in the work on " Laws ; " for in
these works he commends community of goods,
community of education, and even community of
meals. Aristotle,1 who accurately describes these
economic systems, has also clearly demonstrated
their untenableness. While the communistic at-
tempts of antiquity suppose a large portion of the
population to be in the condition of slavery, there
arose in the first Christian community in Jerusalem
a higher kind of communism, based upon true
charity and equality. Among the early Christians
those who chose could retain their possessions; but
most of them, of their own accord, sold all they
possessed and gave the proceeds to the apostles for
the common support of all.2 In voluntary poverty
the first Christians wished to devote themselves
wholly to the service of God and of their neighbor.
Such a condition, however, in its very nature, con-

1 Polit. ii. 2. 2 Acts v.

14 Nature and Development of Socialism.

sidering men as they generally are, could not be
obligatory, universal, permanent — a circumstance
which was overlooked by the Apostolics, Albigenses,
Anabaptists, and other sects which in the course of
centuries fell off from the Church and clung to the
principle of the unlawfulness of private property.
Apart from these heresies and from some com-
munistic political works of fiction based, as it seems,
chiefly on the "Utopia" of Blessed Thomas More,
and the attempt of a communistic conspiracy under
Baboeuf (died 1796 A.D.), we may say that com-
munism and socialism are essentially the growth of
modern times. The reductions of Paraguay which
are frequently set up as models of communism were
not strictly communistic and were destined only to
be institutions of a transitory character.1

II. The Chief Founders of Modern Socialism.

i. The occasion of modern socialism was the great
development of industry and the modification of
social circumstances dating from the latter part of the
last century. Since the French Revolution modern
discoveries have brought about astounding results
in the field of industry and commerce. But one of
these results was the great division of society into
two hostile classes — a small number of wealthy
capitalists, and an immense multitude of day-labor-
ers— which classes are usually designated respectively
as capital and labor. Modern socialism takes its
origin from this opposition between the rich and the
poor ; and its last object is the final removal of this
inequality.

1 Stimmen aus Maria Laach, vol. xxxv. p. 445.

The Chief Founders of Modern Socialism. 1 5

2. The first who endeavored to give a form to
modern socialism was Count de St. Simon (1776-
1825). From him dates socialism in its present
shape. Liberal political economists had established
the principle that labor alone is the foundation and
source of all value, and, consequently, of all wealth.
Socialism seized upon this principle and made it the
basis of its operations against the modern conditions
of property. St. Simon drew from this principle
the conclusion that labor — industry in its wider
sense — must be the standard of all social institu-
tions ; in other words, that the laborers should not
as heretofore take the last but the first place in
society ; it was, therefore, the business of social sci-
ence to restore the laborers to the position due to
them.

St. Simon was only a theorist. He made no prac-
tical attempts to give effect to his views; nay, he
did not even venture directly to question the right
of private property. Bazard, his chief disciple, con-
tinued to build on the foundation laid by his master.
In order to remove the inequality and seeming in-
justice of the existing conditions of property, he
demanded a complete modification of the rights of
inheritance. In place of kindred he would make
merit the basis of inheritance ; or rather, the state
alone was to be the heir of all its children and distrib-
ute the property of the deceased among the most
worthy of the living.

3 Almost contemporarily with St. Simon, Charles
Fourier (1772-1837) proposed his system of social-
ism. Fourier proceeds from the supposition that
what is ordinarily called the will of God is nothing
else than the laws of universal attraction, which up-
hold the universe and manifest themselves in the

1 6 Nature and Development of Socialism.

instincts and tendencies of all things. Also in man
these instincts are revelations of the divine will.
Therefore it is unlawful to suppress them ; they
should be gratified ; from their gratification arises
human happiness ; but the means to this gratifica-
tion is the organization of labor.

This organization is to be brought about in this wise.
Proprietors, without losing the right of property, should con-
tribute all their wealth to the common industry, in order
that each individual in continued succession may be able to
apply himself to that occupation to which his momentary
instinct may incline him. Such labor would be a delight.
Fourier, moreover, makes the following propositions. On
every square mile should dwell two thousand persons (a
phalanx) in one large building (phalanstere) under the con-
trol of an overseer (unarque). The phalanxes, again, should
be divided into series, the series into groups. Thus each
one might at pleasure change his labor. From the proceeds
of the labor four- twelfths goes to the capital as interest ;
three-twelfths is given to genius; and the rest, five-twelfths,
is given to labor. Yet neither St. Simon nor Fourier ven-
tured to suggest the abolition of private property. For the
rest, there is an intrinsic contradiction in the very fact that
Fourier allows private property to exist and wishes to com
pel the proprietor to give all his capital for common use.

4. Like Bazard, so also Louis Blanc (1811-1882^
finds the root of all economic evils in free competi-
tion ; and the only remedy, according to him, is in
the public organization of labor. The state should
undertake the part of the chief producer and grad-
ually extend its production so as to make private
production impossible. After the state has achieved
this result it should regulate and control the entire
industry of the nation. Louis Blanc was also the
first who publicly represented the principle of right
to labor and endeavored to bring this right into ac-

The Chief Founders of Modern Socialism. 17

tion by erecting national workshops for laborers out
of work.

5. In Germany Karl Rodbertus (1805-1875) is
considered the first representative and pioneer of
"scientific " socialism. He develops his theories in
popular letters and essays on social questions and
political economy.1 He himself characterizes his
doctrine as the " logical development of the princi-
ple introduced into political science by Adam Smith,
and further developed by Ricardo, that all goods,
considered from an industrial standpoint, are only the
product of labor, and cost nothing but labor."

If the division of the national produce is left to itself, says
Rodbertus, the wages of the laborer becomes an ever
smaller portion of the national produce the more produc-
tion increases : and this gives rise to pauperism and to in-
dustrial crises. These evils can be remedied only by the
gradual introduction of society into a condition in which
neither real estate nor capital can further exist, but only
wages or labor income.

6. A much more important part, however, in the
development of "scientific" socialism both in and
outside of Germany was played by Karl Marx (born
1808 in Treves, died 1883 in London). He develops
his theory principally in his famous work entitled
"Capital." Like St. Simon and Rodbertus he pro-
ceeds from the principle that labor is the only source
of exchange-value. He distinguishes between use-
value and exchange-value. The former consists in
the usefulness of an object for supplying human
wants and is based upon the physical and chemical
attributes of the object. The latter, on the other

1 Sociale Briefe, 1850-51. Briefe und Socialpolitische Aufsatze,
1882.

1 8 Nature and Development of Socialism.

hand, consists in the ratio in which the use-value of
one object stands to the use-value of another. The
use-value of bread, for instance, consists in its useful-
ness for nourishment ; its exchange-value, on the
other hand, consists in its fitness to be exchanged
or sold for other goods or merchandise. An object
has exchange value only because it contains labor,
and the measure of the labor embodied in it is the
measure of its exchangeable value.

Hence Marx infers that by mere exchange of
goods against goods no surplus-value, or increment,
can be obtained, since in a case of exchange what
is given must be equivalent to what is received. The
same applies to exchange of capital, in which money
is bartered for goods, and goods again for money.
How does the capitalist notwithstanding come to
his surplus-value, or increment, nay, to the accumu-
lation of an enormous capital ? It is by the secret
of "surplus-making" (Plusmacherei), which Marx
discloses to us, and the disclosure of which forms the
gist of his work on " Capital." His line of reasoning
is the following :

Like every other commodity, labor-power, which in our
day is considered a species of merchandise, has its use-value
and its exchange- value. The exchange - value of labor-
power is determined, like the value of every other kind of
merchandise, by the average amount of joint labor contained
in it, or by the value of the nutriment which is generally
required for the nourishment and sustenance of the labor-
power. But besides this labor-power has a use-value of its
very nature, " which costs the laborer nothing, but enriches
the capitalist considerably." For labor has this property,
that it confers upon its products greater exchange-value
than it possesses itself. If, for instance, the value of the
victuals which the laborer generally consumes is three
shillings, those three shillings form the exchange-value of

The Chief Founders of Modern Socialism. 19

the labor-power, or the wages, due to it. A portion of the
labor-time, say six houis, is employed by the laborer to
produce in another form that value which he receives under
the form of money (three shillings). This portion of time
Marx calls the necessary labor-time.

But the laborer must over and above this necessary time
work perhaps twelve hours. " This second period of the
labor process which the laborer works beyond his time costs
him labor, expenditure of labor-power, but has for him no
value. // forms SURPLUS-VALUE, which smiles upon the
capitalist with all the attractiveness of a new creation"1
This surplus-value, or increment, the capitalist appropriates
without cost. It naturally increases in proportion to the
length of the daily labor-time, with the number of laborers
employed, and the lowness of wages.

But in virtue of the very same laws by which capitalism
oppresses and overreaches the laborer, capital itself must
}ield to a higher social order. The number of competitors
is constantly diminished, while their power is becoming con-
stantly more oppressive. On the other hand, the number of
impoverished laborers is on the increase and their misery
is becoming more unbearable. The concentration of labor-
material, the organization of labor, and the education of the
organized labor-classes approach a stage at which the bonds of
capitalism and monopoly are to be rent in the hands of the
few. The "spoilers shall be despoiled," and individual
property will be restored " based on the achievements of a
capitalistic era, i.e., on the co operation of free labor and
common ownership in land, as well as in those means of pro-
duction which are themselves the product of labor."*

The change of individual private property, based upon
individual labor, into capital is naturally a process much
more tedious, arduous, and difficult than the transfer of the
capitalistic private property, as it now actually exists on the
basis of social usurpation of all means of production, into
public property. The former process consisted in the ex-
propriation of the masses of the people by a few usurpers ;
the latter consists in the expropriation of a few itsurpers by
the masses of the people.

1 Kapital, 4 ed., p. 178.

2 Ibid., p. 728.

2O Nature and Development of Socialism.

This passage is important, as it opens to us a view
into the future socialistic order of society as it ex-
isted in the mind of the founder of the International.
Taking this passage in connection with the other
expositions of Marx in the work entitled " Capital,"
we may establish the following programme :

a. Common ownership of all means of production to be
brought about by the expropriation of the usurpers (capital-
ists) by the masses of the people through democratic as
opposed to constitutional ways and means.

b. Social or common employment of all means of labor
by the co-operation of free labor — the public organization
of labor on a democratic as opposed to a constitutional
basis.

c. The proceeds of labor are to be regarded as public
produce. Part of this produce is to be employed for new
production ; the rest is destined for use, should be distributed
and become private property. This is the part of the produce
which Marx repeatedly characterizes as private property
based on labor.

d. In the distribution of the public produce, according to
the principles of Marx (although he is not sufficiently ex-
plicit on the point), the amount of labor which is profitable
for society, or the necessary labor-time which each one must
expend for the benefit of society, is to be taken as a
standard.

7. As an agitator Ferdinand Lassalle (1825-1864)
has, at least in Germany, exercised a greater influ-
ence on the development of socialism than did Karl
Marx; but in theory " the labor king" stands upon
the same ground as the founder of the International.
He closely follows Marx, particularly in his theory
on value. Peculiar to the great agitator is that law
which after him was called the " iron law of wages."
The average wages should be equivalent to the
amount necessary for the support of life — i.e., for

Tlic Present Phase of Socialism. 2 1

subsistence and propagation — according to the cus-
toms of a given country. This law, it is true, had
been previously established ; but Lassalle enun-
ciated it in such terms as to give it point and make
it suitable for agitating purposes. We shall submit
the law of wages to further inquiry at a later stage
of this work.

III. The Present Phase of Socialism.

If we now cast a glance on the present phase of
socialism we may distinguish two principal schools :
(i) The German social democrats and the kindred
collcctivists in France and England, and (2) the
anarchists. The first school stands altogether on
the ground of Marx's theory. The German social
democrats, whose chief representatives are Franz
Engels and the members of the Imperial Parliament
Bebel, Liebknecht, Auer, Senger, and Grillenberger,
adopted the following programme in Gotha in the
year 1875 — known as the Gotha programme —
which they have since strictly followed, and which
was considered the official platform of this school
till October 1891, when a new platform was adopted
at Erfurt, called the Erfurt programme. We print
both programmes in full.

A. THE GOTHA PROGRAMME (1875).

I. Labor is the source of all wealth, and culture ; and since
universally efficient labor is possible only through society, it
follows that, the universal duty of labor being supposed, the
entire product of labor belongs with equal right to the entire
body of society, — that is, to its individual members, — each
according to his individual wants.

22 Nature and Development of Socialism.

In the present state of society labor materials are mo-
nopolized by capitalists ; and the dependence of the laboring
class thence arising is the cause of misery and slavery in all
its forms.

The liberation of labor requires the transformation of all
labor materials into the common property of society, and the
social control of all labor, together with the application and
just distribution of the entire proceeds of labor, for the use
of all.

The liberation of labor must be the work of the laboring
class, which stands in opposition to other classes as a reac-
tive mass.

II. Proceeding from these principles, the socialistic labor
party of Germany seeks by all means to bring about a free
state and a socialistic organization, the abolition of the iron
wage law and of the system of wage-working, the removal
of oppression of every form, and of all social and political
inequality.

The socialistic labor party of Germany, though operating
within the confines of the nation, is conscious of the inter-
national character of the labor movement and is determined
to discharge all the duties which this universality imposes
upon the laborers to bring about the brotherhood of all
men.

The socialistic party of Germany demands, in order to
prepare the way for the solution of the social problem, the
institution of socialistic industrial associations at the public
expense under the democratic control of the laboring people.
These associations are to be of such dimensions that from
them the socialistic organization of the entire people may be
developed.

This portion of the programme contains the
economic aims and, consequently, the gist of the
social democratic aspirations. It is followed by a
second political programme which voices the polit-
ical aims of the movement — in the first place, the
final and permanent ends and, in the second place,
the means which are gradually to transform our
present society into a socialistic state.

The Present Phase of Socialism. 23

The socialistic labor party of Germany demands that the
constitution of the state should rest upon the following
principles: (i) Universal, equal, and direct suffrage with
private ballot, and obligatory voting of all subjects of the
state from the age of twenty upwards for all elections in
state and municipality. The election-day is to be on a
Sunday or a holiday. (2) Immediate legislation by the
people. Decisions regarding peace and war by the people.
(3) Universal military service. Civil militia instead of
standing armies. (4) The abolition of all exceptional legis-
lation, especially regarding the freedom of the press, of as-
sociation, and of holding public meetings, and generally of
all laws which in any way restrict the free expression of
opinion, free thought and research. (5) The administration
of justice by the people. Free administration of justice.
(6) Universal and equal education of the people by the
state; universal compulsory education; free instruction in
all educational institutions. Religion to be declared a
private matter.

The socialistic labor party of Germany demands in the
present existing social circumstances : (i) The greatest pos-
sible extent of political rights and franchises in conformity
with the above demands. (2) One only progressive income-
tax for state and municipality in the place of all existing
taxation — particularly in the place of the indirect taxation
which weighs so heavily upon the people. (3) Unlimited right
of association. (4) A normal working day suited to social
circumstances. [By a normal working day some socialists
understand a maximum of working hours permitted in any
given industry ; others, again, understand by the normal
working day the necessary social labor-time of an individual,
which varies in proportion to his natural wants and to the
productiveness of his labor; others, again, understand by
the normal working day the number of hours which a laborer
of medium health and strength and of medium effort, under
ordinary conditions, can work daily.] Prohibition of Sun-
day labor. (5) Prohibition of child labor, and of such labor
for women as is injurious to health and morality. (6) Laws
protecting the life and health of the laborers. Sanitary
control of the workmen's dwellings. The supervision of
mines, factories, workshops, and domestic industries by

24 Nature and Development of Socialism.

officers elected by the workmen. Efficient insurance and
compensation laws. (7) The regulation of prison labor.
(8) Independent administration of all aid and benefit funds.

B. THE ERFURT PROGRAMME (1891).
t

I. The economical development of civil society necessarily
leads to the destruction of small industries, the basis of
which is private ownership of the laborer in the means
of production. It divests the laborer of all means of pro-
duction and transforms him into a penniless proletarian,
while the means of production become the sole property of
a comparatively small number of capitalists and real-estate
owners.

Hand in hand with the monopoly of capital goes the
abolition of the disorganized small industries by the forma-
tion of vast industrial organizations, the development of
work-tools into machines, and a gigantic increase of the
productiveness of human labor. But all the advantages of
this change are monopolized by the capitalists and land-
owners. For the proletariat and the declining middle
classes — common citizens and farmers — this social change
is tantamount to the prevalence of insecurity of existence,
misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, vexation.

The number of proletarians increases, the army of super-
fluous laborers assumes greater dimensions from day to day ;
the conflict between the oppressor and the oppressed is
becoming more and more violent — that conflict between
the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, which divides modern
society into two hostile camps and is the common char-
acteristic of all industrial nations.

The chasm between rich and poor is widened by those
financial crises which are grounded in the very nature of
capitalistic industry — crises which become ever more ex-
tensive and destructive, make universal insecurity the
normal state of society, and give evidence that the produc-
tive forces of our age have become uncontrollable by society,
and that private property in the means of production has
become incompatible with their proper utilization and full
development.

Private property in the means of production, which for-

The Present Phase of Socialism. 25

merly was a means of securing to the producer the owner-
ship of his produce, has nowadays become a means of
dispossessing farmers, laborers, and small merchants, and
of making the non-laborers — capitalists and landlords — the
possessors of the produce of labor. Only the transformation
of private capitalistic property in the means of production —
i.e., land, mines and mining, raw material, tools, machinery,
and means of communication — into common property, and
the change of private production into socialistic — i.e., pro-
duction for and through society — can effect that the ex-
tensive industry and the ever-increasing productiveness of
social labor shall become for the downtrodden classes,
instead of a fountain of misery and oppression, a source of
the highest prosperity and of universal and harmonious
perfection.

This social revolution implies the liberation, not only of
the laboring class, but of the entire human race, which is
suffering under our present condition. But this emancipa-
tion can only be the work of the laboring classes, since all
other classes, notwithstanding their clashing interests, take
their stand on the platform of private property in land and
in the means of production, and make the preservation of
modern society on its present basis their common object.

The struggle of labor against capitalistic oppression is
necessarily a political one. The laboring class cannot carry
on its industrial struggles and develop its economic organiza-
tion without political rights. It cannot effect the transfer
of the means of production into the possession of the body
social without possessing itself of political power.

To give to this struggle of the laboring class spontaneous
activity and unity, and to assign to it its natural direction —
this is the end and aim of the social democratic party.

The interests of the laboring classes are the same in all
countries where capitalistic industry exists. Owing to the
extent of international commerce and industry the condi-
tion of labor in every country becomes more and more
dependent on the condition of labor in all other countries.
The emancipation of the laboring classes is therefore a work
in which the laborers of all civilized countries should take
part. In this conviction the social democratic party of

26 Nature and Development of Socialism.

Germany feels and declares itself to be at one with the
intelligent organized laborers of all other countries.

The social democratic party of Germany does not con-
tend for new rights or privileges for the laboring classes, but
for the abolition of the rule of the classes and of the classes
themselves, and for the equal rights and equal duties of all
without distinction of sex or pedigree. Proceeding from
these views, social democracy in modern society opposes not
only the enslavement and oppression of the laboring class,
but every kind of slavery and oppression, no matter against
what class, party, race, or sex they may be brought to bear.

II. Proceeding from these principles, the social democratic
party of Germany for the present demands :

1. Universal, equal, direct suffrage by private ballot for
all citizens over twenty years of age, without distinction of
sex, in all elections and ballotings. Representation propor-
tioned to the number of population, and meanwhile a re-
distribution of election districts after each census. Biennial
elections. Elections and other ballotings to be held on a
legal holiday. Compensation for representatives. Abolition
of every restriction of political rights except in the case of
legal disf ranch isement.

2. Direct legislation by the people through the right of
motion and of veto. Self-rule and self-administration by
the people in empire, state, province, and community.
Election of magistrates by the people ; their responsibility
in solidarity to the people. Annual grant of taxation.

3. Education for universal military service. Popular
militia instead of standing armies. Decisions regarding
peace and war by the representatives of the people. Inter-
national disputes to be settled by arbitration.

4. Abolition of all laws which restrict or suppress freedom
in the expression of opinion ; the right of forming asso-
ciations and holding conventions.

5. Abolition of all laws which subordinate woman to man
in public and private life.

6. Religion is to be declared a private concern ; the use
of public funds for ecclesiastical and religious purposes to
be abolished. Ecclesiastical and religious communities are
to be regarded as private societies which are perfectly free
to manage their own affairs.

The Present Phase of Socialism. 27

7. Secularization of the schools. Compulsory attendance
of the public schools. Instruction, use of all the means of
instruction (books, etc.), and board free of charge in all
public elementary schools, and in the higher institutions of
learning for such pupils of both sexes as, on account of
their talents, are judged fit for higher studies.

8. Gratuitous administration of justice and legal advice.
Administration of justice by judges elected by the people.
The right of appeal in criminal cases. Indemnification of
those who have been unjustly accused, arrested, or con-
demned. Abolition of capital punishment.

9. Free medical attendance, also in childbirth ; free medi-
cine. Free burial.

10. Graded and progressive taxation on income and
property to meet all public expenses which are to be de-
frayed by taxes. Obligatory self-valuation. Taxation on
hereditary property, graded progressively according to the
extent of the property and the degree of kindred of the
heirs. Abolition of all indirect taxes, customs, and other
economical imposts, which subordinate the general interests
to the interests of the few.

For the protection of the laboring class the social demo-
cratic party of Germany demands for the present :

1. National and international legislation for the protec-
tion of labor on the following basis : (a) The determination of
a normal work-day not exceeding eight hours, (b) Prohibi-
tion of industrial labor by children under the age of fourteen
years, (c} Prohibition of night-work, except in those branches
of industry which of their nature, for mechanical reasons or
for the common welfare, require night-work, (d} An un-
interrupted rest of at least thirty-six hours every week for
each laborer, (e) Abolition of the force system.

2. Supervision of all industries. Investigation and regu-
lation of the condition of labor in town and country by
means of imperial and provincial labor bureaus and labor
councils. An effectual system of industrial hygiene.

3. Equality between agricultural laborers or servants and
industrial laborers; abolition of the domestic relations be-
tween masters (or mistresses) and servants.

4. Maintenance of the right of coalition.

5. Insurance of laborers to be regulated by the imperial

28 Nature and Development of Socialism.

government, with due co-operation of the laborers in the
administration.

A. Schaffle,1 a socialistic writer of some promi-
nence, gives, as the result of a long-continued study
of socialistic literature, the following description of
the ends and aims of socialism :

The conversion of private capital, i.e., of the speculative
private system of production controlled by free competi-
tion into collective capital — i.e., into a system of production
which by means of collective or common ownership of all
means of production by all members of the community
would bring about a united [social, collective] organization
of the national labor. This collective method of production
would supplant the present system of competition by putting
the collective [social, co-operative] branches of production
under professional control and by distributing, by means of
this same professional direction, the entire social produce of
nil among all — according to the standard of the social value
of the productive labor of each individual.

In the socialistic state, therefore, there would be, accord-
ing to Schaffle's declarations, no private property in pro-
ductive materials, consequently no private enterprise and no
private competition. All labor materials would be the
property of the state as such, or of all the members of the
state taken collectively. The productions would be the
result of the public productive labor of the community. " All
socially regulated productive and industrial institutions fitted
out from the collective capital of the state." There would
be no more wage-working or wages. All laborers would be,
as it were, in the pay of the community, which would give
to each one his share of the proceeds in proportion to the
part which he had taken in the entire labor. "The neces-
sary amount of production of whatever kind must be deter-
mined by a continued official account kept by bureaus of con-
sumption and production, and this estimate must determine
the extent of the scheme of each branch of industry. Def-
icits and surpluses, which may occur in the actual proceeds

1 Quintessenz des Socialismus, 9 ed., 1885, p. 2.

The Present Phase of Socialism. 29

below or above the industrial estimates of each period
must be balanced by means of supplies to be kept on hand —
not in private stores, but in public magazines."1

This scheme exactly coincides with that laid down by Karl
Marx in " Capital " and adopted in the Gotha and Erfurt
programmes. The same scheme is reproduced in almost all
social democratic publications. Thus, for instance, in a
manifesto entitled " What the Social Democrats are and what
they aim at," scattered broadcast for years among the laborers
at the elections, we read among other things : "Down with the
wage-system ! This is the first demand of social democracy.
In the place of wage-work, with its class ascendency, must
be established social labor, association (co-operative pro-
duction). The instrumentsof labor must cease to be the
monopoly of one class and become the common property of
all. . . . [We demand the] control of production and the
division of the produce in the interest of the masses; aboli-
tion of modern commerce, which is fraud, as well as of the
modern system of production. Co-ordinate with one an-
other all workmen shall have to perform the necessary
labor for the interests of all the members of the state. . . .
Labor shall be a burden to none, because it is the duty
of all. . . . And in order that this scheme may be realized
we demand a democratic government — a government of all
and for all, a government consisting of society itself ration-
ally and justly organized, a universal institution for the
insurance of happiness and culture, a brotherhood of free
and equal men."

That the description which we have given of socialism is
correct may be easily seen from the writings of August
Bebel,2 J. Stern,8 and others, whose opinions exactly coincide
with those which we have reproduced. Bebel, it is true,
wishes only to give his personal views, but his great popu-
larity with the masses of socialists is a sufficient guarantee
that his opinions are orthodox in the socialistic sense.
Since, however, in our criticism of socialism we shall have

1 Quintessenz, p. 3.

2 Unsere Ziele, 5 ed., 1875 ; Die Frau in der Gegenvvart, 7 ed.,
1887.

3 Thesen iiber den Socialismus, iSoo.

30 Nature and Development of Socialism.

frequent occasion to return to Bebel, we shall here, in order
to avoid repetitions, abstain from quoting his opinions.

In our description of socialism we have chiefly dwelt upon
the tenets of the social democrats of Germany. However,
the principles of all advanced socialists of other countries
coincide in the main with these. We have only to compare,
for instance, the platform adopted by the International Labor
Congress of Paris, 1889, with the Gotha and Erfurt pro-
grammes, and with the various other documents which we
have cited, to convince ourselves of the identity. The only
difference between the socialists of the various nationalities
is in their tactics, not in their principles ; and in no other
country have the principles been so scientifically developed
as in Germany.

That the tendency of American socialism is the same as
that of European nations may be seen by comparing the
platform of the American Socialistic Labor Party with the
various schemes already described. The congress held at
Baltimore, 1883, issued the following manifesto:1

" Labor being the creator of all wealth and civilization, it
rightfully follows that those who labor and create all wealth
should enjoy the full result of their toil. Therefore we
declare :

" That a just and equitable distribution of the fruits of
labor is utterly impossible under the present system of
society. This fact is abundantly illustrated by the deplora-
ble condition of the working classes, which are in a state of
destitution and degrading dependence in the midst of their
own productions. While the hardest and most disagreeable
work brings to the worker only the bare necessaries of life,
others, who labor not, riot in labor's production. We
furthermore declare :

"That the present industrial system of competition,
based on rent, profit-taking, and interest, causes and inten-
sifies this inequality, concentrating into the hands of a fe\v
all means of production, distribution, and the results of
labor, thus creating gigantic monopolies, dangerous to the
people's liberties; and we further declare :

" That these monster monopolies and these consequent

1 Richard Ely, Labor Movement, pp. 269, 270.

The Present Phase of Socialism. 3 1

extremes of wealth and poverty supported by class legisla-
tion are subversive of all democracy, injurious to the national
interests, and destructive of truth and morality. This state
of affairs, continued and upheld by the ruling political par-
ties, is against the welfare of the people.

"To abolish this system, with a view to establish co-
operative production, and to secure equitable distribution,
we demand tJiat the resources of life, namely, land, the means
of production, public transportation, and exchange, become as
fast as practicable the property of the whole state"

More explicit still are succeeding declarations, as those
issued in Cincinnati, 1885.

The Socialistic Labor Party strives for a radical revision of
the Constitution and statutes of the United States, the
States and municipalities, according to the following de-
mands :

(a) SOCIAL DEMANDS.

1. The United States shall take possession of the railroads,
canals, telegraphs, telephones, and all other means of pub-
lic transportation.

2. The municipalities to take possession of the local rail-
roads, of ferries, and of the supply of light to streets and
public places.

3. Public lands to be declared inalienable. They shall be
leased according to fixed principles. Revocation of all
grants of lands by the United States to corporations or in-
dividuals the conditions of which have not been complied
with or which are otherwise illegal.

4. The United States to have the exclusive right to issue
money.

5. Congressional legislation providing for the scientific
management of forests and waterways, and prohibiting the
waste of the natural resources of the country.

6. The United States to have the right of expropriation
of running patents. New inventions to be free to all, but
inventors to be remunerated by national rewards.

7. Legal provision that the rent of dwellings shall not
exceed a certain percentage of the value of the buildings as
taxed by the municipality.

32 Nature and Development of Socialism.

8. Inauguration of public works in times of economical
depression.

9. Progressive income-tax and tax on inheritances, but
smaller incomes to be exempt.

10. Compulsory school education of all children under
fourteen years of age. Instruction in all educational institu-
tions to be gratuitous, and to be made accessible to all by
public assistance (furnishing meals, clothes, books, etc.).
All instruction to be under the direction of the United
States, and to be organized on a uniform plan.

11. Repeal of all pauper, tramp, conspiracy, and temper-
ance laws. Unabridged right of combination.

12. Official statistics concerning the condition of labor.
Prohibition of the employment of children in the school
age, and the employment of female labor in occupations
detrimental to health or morality. Prohibition of the con-
vict-labor contract system.

13. All wages to be paid in cash money. Equalization by
law of women's wages with those of men where equal ser-
vice is performed.

14. Laws for the protection of life and limb of working
people, and an efficient employer's liability law.

15. Legal incorporation of trades-unions.

16. Reduction of the hours of labor in proportion to the
progress of production ; establishment by act of Congress of
a legal work-day of not more than eight hours for all indus-
trial workers, and corresponding provisions for all agricul-
tural laborers.

(£) POLITICAL DEMANDS.

1. Abolition of the Presidency, Vice-Presidency, and
Senate of the United States. An Executive Board to be
established whose members are to be elected, and may at
anytime be recalled, by the House of Representatives as the
only legislative body. The States and municipalities to
adopt corresponding amendments of their constitution and
statutes.

2. Municipal self-government.

3. Direct vote and secret ballot in all elections. Universal
and equal rights of suffrage without regard to color, creed,

The Present Phase of Socialism. 33

or sex. Election-days to be legal holidays. The principle
of minority representation to be introduced.

4. The people to have the right to propose laws (initiative)
and to vote upon all laws of importance (referendum).

5. The members of all legislative bodies to be responsible
to and subject to recall by the constituency.

6. Uniform law throughout the United States. Adminis-
tration of justice to be free of charge. Abolition of capital
punishment.

7. Separation of all public affairs from religion ; church
property to be subject to taxation.

8. Uniform national marriage laws. Divorce to be granted
upon mutual consent, and upon providing for the care of
the children.

Similar is the programme of the Australian Socialistic
Union, established 1890 in Sydney, New South Wales.
That these principles are carefully propagated not only in
conventions, but also among the masses, may be seen from a
popular catechism printed for the use of the Knights of
Labor in the city of Buffalo, N. Y., 1888.

What are our six demands? the Knight is asked. The
answer is :

I. The equal rights of all men to the soil.

II. That lands held for speculative purposes should be
taxed to their full value.

III. That money should be issued by the government and
not through banks.

IV. That the railroads and telegraphs be managed by the
government.

V. That children under fifteen years should not be em-
ployed in workshops, mines, or factories.

VI. That all workmen should be properly protected while
at work.

Again the Knight is questioned as follows:

Do you believe that all men are created equal? Yes.

Have they equal rights to life? Yes.

Have they equal rights to the soil, the land — in other
words, to the means of living? Yes.

What right has the people to the land of the earth ? The
right to the use of it.

34 Nature and Development of Socialism.

Has one generation more right to the earth than another ?
No. . . .

If the land of any country belongs to the people of that
country, to whom does the rent belong? To the people
who have a right to the land.

After the aspirant to knighthood is further instructed on
the blessedness attendant on the socialization of the soil
and the management of all monopolies by the government,
this query is put to him : "With all monopolies managed by
the government and all men sharing alike the benefits
arising from the ownership of land, would the working-
men's condition be improved?" The answer is worthy
of Bebel himself: "Yes. He would find'himself in a para-
dise, where it would be a pleasure to labor."

These samples of socialism from the United States may
suffice to show that Americans in their own practical
way have largely gleaned from the theories of Marx and of
the German socialists. This is manifest to any one who is
slightly acquainted with the writings of Bellamy and Henry
George. *

1 See Rae's recent learned work entitled " Socialism, "passim.

CHAPTER II.

UNTENABLENESS OF THE PRINCIPLES OF
SOCIALISM.

SECTION I.

PHILOSOPHICAL AND RELIGIOUS ASSUMPTIONS.
I. Equal Rights of all Men.

IN demonstrating the untenableness of the princi-
ples of socialism we shall not confine ourselves
merely to its economic aspects. Such a consider-
ation would be one-sided and imperfect. For
although the chief demands of socialism are of an
economic character, yet its theories are based upon
principles which belong to other departments of
science.

I. The fundamental principles of socialism belong
not to economical but to metaphysical science.
Foremost among its tenets is the equality of man,
not from a physical but from a juridical standpoint.
We do not, therefore, contend that the socialists
demand the absolute equality of all ; they insist
only on the equal rights of all. But this demand
tacitly presupposes absolute equality. We must,
therefore, distinguish their demand from their
assumption.

There has been some doubt as to whether this
35

36 Untenable ness of the Principles of Socialism.

supposition of the absolute equality of men from
which modern socialists proceed is essential to
socialism. Schaffle, who enjoys considerable au-
thority among socialists, seems to deny this. Paul-
sen even goes so far as to assert that socialism must
assume the character " not of the party of equality,
but of the party of equal rights ; not of the party of
false democracy, but of the party of moral and
intellectual — that is, natural — aristocracy." ' How-
ever, he seems to ignore the very essence of socialism
as a labor organization. True, the socialists charac-
terize themselves as the party of justice. But whence
have they the right to set themselves up as the
vindicators of justice, and to brand modern society
wholesale as unjust? If they wish to answer this
question they must either point to the equality of
all men, from which equality equal rights would
follow ; or they must maintain that labor is the only
source of just property. By substituting for the
existing aristocracy a nondescript natural aristocracy,
the laboring classes would profit little and the
existing social misery which the socialists would
dispel would hardly be removed.

In fact, the socialists demand "equal rights and
equal duties for all" — " the removal of all social
and political inequality " (Gotha programme).
Bebel2 and Stern3 and others demand the equality
of the conditions of existence for all. According
to Liebknecht 4 there shall exist in the state of the
future absolute equality of rights, and this equality is
to be the only limit to freedom. By such absolute

1 System der Ethik, p. 729.

2 Die Frau, p. 150.

3 Thesen uber den Socialismus, p. 19.

4 Berliner Volksblatt, 1890, No. 253,

Equal Rights of all Men. 37

equality of rights we cannot understand merely
equality before the law ; for such equality already
exists to a certain extent — and that not only politi-
cally, but also juridically and socially. In the
German Empire, for instance, the law makes no
distinctions of ranks and classes in conferring
political rights. There exists, therefore, political
equality before the law. Nor does the German
Empire make any distinction in the administration
of justice, so that there exists also juridical equality
strictly so called. Nay, not even is there any social
inequality before the law in regard to domestic
rights or commercial and industrial life. Each one
is free to take up any branch of industry or any
trade or profession he pleases, if he only complies
with the necessary legal conditions.

When, therefore, the socialists take equal rights
as their watch-word and in the name of this equality
make war upon society, they do not mean by equal
rights equality before the law, but the actual and
absolute equality of rig Jits in actual social life. For,
notwithstanding the equality before the law, there
actually exists the greatest inequality of rights in
political as well as in other regards. The political
rights, for instance, of members of the legislature,
ministers of state, and other officials are different
from those of electors ; and, notwithstanding the
abstract equal rights of all, it is but the very few who
become members of parliament, ministers, or im-
perial state councillors. Much less is there actual
equality of rights in social life. There are rich and
poor, learned and unlearned, laborers and employers.
In short, society is divided into countless professions
and callings, all attended with different rights and
duties. It is particularly this inequality that the

38 Untenableness of the Principles of Socialism.

socialists would remove. This demand has a promi-
nent place in the Gotha programme — the removal
of all social and political inequality. Such a de-
mand can have some semblance of justice only in
the supposition of the absolute equality of all men.
In the course of our inquiry we shall have occasion
to show that the socialistic organization, if it has
any foundation at all, is based on the absolute
equality of all men. Let us, therefore, examine
this assumption itself.

2. True it is that all men have a like nature —
that all men are perfectly equal, if considered in the
abstract, according to their nature, apart from all
concrete circumstances which must necessarily ac-
company actual existence. All have the same
Creator, the same aim and end, the same natural
moral law ; all are members of one great family.
Hence follows also that there are essential rights
and duties which are, so to speak, necessarily en-
grafted on human nature and are the same with all
men. Every individual human being has, therefore,
at all times and in all places, the right to be treated
as a man. Every individual has also the right to
the strictly necessary conditions of existence. But
that all men must enjoy the same conditions of
existence cannot be proved from the equality of
men in the abstract.

3. As soon as we consider men as they really are
we are confronted with the greatest possible variety
from which necessarily arises a diversity of rights
and duties. Some are in helpless infancy or tender
youth ; others in the strength of manhood ; others
again are declining to their graves in decrepit old
age. From this variety necessarily follows a diver-
sity of rights and duties. Or should helpless children

Equal Rights of all Men. 39

and decrepit old men and women possess the same
rights and duties as men in the prime of life?
Should the infirm have the same rights and duties
as the healthy, women the same rights as men?
We are aware that many socialists advocate such
equality, particularly the absolute equality between
man and woman. The marriage-union, according
to them, is "a private contract without the inter-
vention of a public functionary." Woman may,
according to their tenets, love whom she pleases
and as long as she pleases. If she is not satisfied
with one alliance, she may loose the knot and bless
some other with her love. Married or unmarried,
she is to enjoy perfect equality with the sterner sex.1

Bebel, however, may permit us to ask him : Must,
then, men in turn with their wives rock the cradle,
cook, knit and darn, and attend to all womanly house-
hold duties ? And, again, must women as well as men
descend into the mines, perform the duties of coach-
men, draymen, sailora, etc.? Must they gird on the
sword, take up the knapsack and rifle, and march to
the field of battle? In order to effect such equality
we would have to go back to the most barbarous
times, and even then this equality would be frus-
trated by the weakness of the female sex. For
why did nature bestow on woman so totally different
an organization — talents, inclinations, and character-
istics so different from those of man ? Is not this
intellectual, moral, and physical diversity an evident
indication that the Creator of both natures has set
for them a totally different task in society ?

Bebel, it is true, thinks that the difference of
endowments and inclinations in the two sexes is

1 Bebel, Die Frau, p. 192.

40 Untenablencss of the Principles of Socialism.

only the result of education — or rather of that
"slavery" to which woman has been thus far sub-
jected, and that with the change of education and
social standing this difference would altogether disap-
pear. This assertion is untrue. It is sufficiently re-
futed by the fact that this difference between man and
woman confronts us everywhere, among all nations,
even of the most diverse customs. It follows also
of necessity from the physical organization of
woman and from the duties and cares which are
inseparably connected with motherhood.

Apart from the diversity of age and sex, even
though we could picture to ourselves men and
women in equal circumstances, such equality in the
conditions of existence of all is unnatural. We
have only to recall to mind how different men are in
regard to inclinations, talents, characters, health,
physical strength, natural wants — to say nothing of
the moral differences in regard to prudence, temper-
ance, industry, economy — to see the utter impossi-
bility of this supposed equality. From this variety
follows also diversity in regard to honors, influence,
property, social standing, which could be prevented
only by continued violence.

To bring home to ourselves with evidence the
utter impossibility of such absolute equality, let us
suppose, for instance, four brothers who bear the
greatest resemblance to one another. Three of them
get married ; the fourth prefers to remain unmarried.
His rights and duties are quite different from those
of the other three. Of these we shall suppose that
one remains childless, the second has three children,
and the third has eight. Their duties and rights
have varied still more. Though we have admitted
that all four brothers were, in the beginning, equally

Equal Rights of all Men. 4 1

situated in regard to home, property, and business
relations, yet, after some ten years have passed, the
conditions of their existence have become very dif-
ferent. The first has to provide for himself only.
The second has to provide for himself and his wife ;
the third has to provide for five persons, and the
fourth for ten. If now we take into account the
difference in regard to talent, industry, etc., it
becomes manifest that in less than half a generation
the circumstances of the four brothers have changed
in many regards. And if, moreover, sickness, mis-
fortune, persecutions have exercised a disturbing
influence upon the relations, may it not easily
happen that within one generation the equality has
altogether disappeared? And what differences will
set in during the following generation which has
already begun under such unequal conditions?

Socialists may object that in the preceding ex-
ample we suppose the now existing conditions of
society, but in the socialistic state of society such a
development would be altogether impossible, as the
care of children, of the sick, etc., would be in the
hands of the community, woman would take the
same part in labor as man ; and each one would live
upon the produce of his own labor. Very true; but
we maintain only that inequality is the necessary
outcome of the natural development of man, and
that socialism could not without external violence
prevent such inequality. A gardener may effect that
all the trees of a park are equally high, or rather
equally low ; but only by continued and violent
pruning. Such an unnatural condition, however,
cannot be lasting.

4. So far we have taken only the family into

42 Untenableness of the Principles of Socialism.

consideration, But beyond the boundaries of the
family, owing to the countless shades of inclinations
and wants, various social gradations are formed. It
is only by an extensive division of labor that men
can satisfy their wants and propensities and arrive
at a higher degree of culture. But the division of
labor again produces as a necessary result the divi-
sion of society into various ranks and professions,
which have for their basis the different inclinations
and talents of men, and afford to each individual
the opportunity of choosing a suitable vocation.

However we may conceive of an advanced state
of society, there will always be ignorant people, and,
consequently, always teachers. Have the pupil and
the teacher the same rights and duties? There will
always be apprentices and masters. Can the master
and the apprentice have the same rights and duties?
There will always be sick persons and persons de-
crepit with old age ; and, consequently, there will
be physicians and surgeons and nurses. Can these
have exactly the same rights and duties as those
intrusted to their charge ? There will always be
agriculture, commerce, industry, science and art.
Shall those who devote themselves to these various
pursuits have exactly the same conditions of life?
Shall all men and women, in the same way, be
trained to the profession and practice of all these
various avocations?

The more moderate class of socialists, it is true,
are inclined to admit different vocations with differ-
ent emoluments in '"'the state of the future." On
the other hand, the extremists — to whom Bebel be-
longs— would do away with all inequality in the
different vocations. By education and culture,

Equal Rights of all Men. 43

according to Bebel, it is possible to make all men
fit for all professions, so that each one " in his turn*'
is fit to discharge all the various functions of social
life. This assumption, however, is absurd, and is
based on an incredible exaggeration of human abili-
ties, as we shall have occasion to show hereafter ;
but it is quite logical, for it follows with rigid neces-
sity from the principles of socialism. He who has
once undertaken, on the ground of the equality of
all men, to upset the existing order of society, and
to create equal conditions of life for all, cannot per-
mit that society freely adopts professions or callings
which, in regard to emolument, labor, and dangers,
are so widely different from one another — as are, for
instance, the professions of an author or an artist,
and the employment of a miner, a fireman, a stable-
boy, a hod-carrier, a laborer in a chemical factory or
spinning-mill.

In recent times the opinion has been expressed that so-
cialism might be satisfied with equality of gain ; that it
actually demanded equality of all conditions of life and the
removal of all social inequality ; but that socialism was not
constrained, in virtue of its principles, to insist on this latter
demand, and it would be satisfied with the equality of indus-
trial conditions. This demand, however, is ambiguous. If
it only implies that the law should afford all equal possi-
bility of acquiring wealth, we already possess this equality.
For the law of itself gives no advantage to any one more
than to another in regard to the acquisition of wealth. But
the socialists manifestly demand something more. If, on
the other hand, they understand by equal industrial advan-
tages that the state should give all its subjects the same
means of acquiring wealth, in other words, that the state
should make an equal distribution of property, we should
again, within a few months or years, have a similar in-
equality, and the division would have to be made anew,

44 Untenablencss of tJic Principles of Socialism.

If by equal industrial conditions they would understand
that the state should withdraw from private control all the
means of wealth, and make it impossible for individuals to
acquire productive capital and bring about inequality of
property, we have again the genuine socialistic theory. But
the question arises : whence does the state derive the right
to withdraw all the means of production from private con-
trol, and to enforce this equality in the means of acquiring
wealth ; in other words, whence does the state derive the
right to make all capital public property, and thus violently
to prevent the more intelligent, more industrious, and the
abler classes from acquiring more than the indolent and
unskilful ? Why compel all individuals, in like manner, to
accommodate themselves in their industrial methods to the
rule and direction of the community ? This demand can be
justified only in the assumption of the absolute equality of
all men, and their equal right to the goods of this earth.
And thus we stand again upon the tacit supposition of so-
cialism, which we have shown to be untenable — that all men
have absolutely the same rights.

II. Undue Emphasis of Industrial Life.

With the false supposition of the absolute equal-
ity of all men are intimately connected other erro-
neous assumptions. The socialists would make all
men, without exception, take an active part in the
plan of social production. The Gotha programme
demands universal compulsory labor, while the Erfurt
platform evidently supposes such an obligation.
Every individual must enter the service of the com-
munity and receive his portion of the common labor
dealt out to him. No one is allowed to possess any
productive property of his own, or to produce any-
thing on his own account. For the satisfaction of
all his wants he is directed to the state magazines.
The education and instruction of youth are to be

Undue Emphasis of Industrial Life. 45

the business of the state, as is also the care of the
sick. In short, every one is to have just so much
freedom and so much right as the community con-
cedes to him. We shall have occasion to discuss
this point more at length hereafter. Suffice it here
to say that in the socialistic theory society or the
state has the unlimited rigJit of disposal over every
individual ; that every one is destined in the first
instance for the service of the community, and that
for the mere purpose of industrial production.

This is the pagan idea of the state as we find it in
Plato and other heathen writers. It does not tolerate
any personal rights as against the community ; it also
virtually denies that the first and highest end of
man upon earth is the service of God and the at-
tainment of perfect happiness after death. As a
logical consequence of this pagan view of the state
and of the individual, socialism unduly exaggerates
the importance of industrial life or the production of
wealth. As in the life of the individual the pursuit
of earthly goods, if estimated according to its true
import, occupies the last place in human activity, so
also it should be in the life of human society at
large. The acquirement of the means of subsist-
ence is subordinate to the higher intellectual aspira-
tions of man. The end of earthly goods is only to
prepare the ground upon which higher and more
ideal goods are produced.

Now, since it is impossible that all in the same
way devote themselves to such various occupations,
there must be different callings and states in life,
which require long-continued preparation, and
which do not all occupy the same place, but form
a certain hierarchical order, consisting of various

46 Untcnableness of the Principles of Socialism.

grades subordinate to one another. By their very
nature the various classes employed in the produc-
tion of the necessaries of life (laborers, artisans,
husbandmen, etc.) occupy the lowest grade, while the
different professions naturally take a higher place
on the social scale. We do not mean to imply,
however, that the former are not worthy of all
consideration and honor, or that those who are
employed in procuring the daily necessaries of life
have less merit before God : we would only say that
the higher professions, considered in themselves,
secure a higher rank in society, that they require
higher endowments and greater culture, and, conse-
quently, may claim greater consideration.

Now, what is the design of socialism ? Social-
ism will make the laboring class the ruling one, and
make labor capacity (the production of value) the
standard of the social organization itself and of the
social position of each member of society. Society
is to become one great productive union. No one
may withdraw himself from the duty of production.
Unproductive, useless individuals shall not be toler-
ated. That in such an organization, in which all
members are forced to be productive, there is no
room for higher callings — e.g., for the priesthood
consecrated to the divine service, for religious orders,
for those who devote themselves to arts and sciences
for their own sake — goes without saying. This
consideration leads us to another erroneous feature
of socialism.

III. Materialistic View of Life.

i. Socialism considers human life merely from its
temporal or earthly standpoint. And, in fact, how

Materialistic Viezv of Life. 47

could a system which proceeds from the supposition
that man is created by God for eternity, and is
placed here on earth to merit heaven by the fulfil-
ment of the divine will — how could such a system
set up material production as the highest standard
of society, and allow a share of earthly goods only
to those who take an actual part in production ?
Could such a system regard religion as a matter of
indifference or put it aside as a thing not worth
caring for? Thus we see that the fundamental idea
of socialism is in contradiction not only with Chris-
tianity, but with every form of religion. The deca-
logue of socialism are the supposed rights of men ;
its god is the democratic, socialistic state ; its last
end is earthly enjoyment for all ; the object of its
worship is production.

2. The first demand of socialism is tacitly based
upon atheism. It demands perfect equality of rights
and of the conditions of life for all, and that in every
regard, but chiefly in social life. Every inequality
in social life is characterized by socialism as an un-
bearable fraud and oppression. Although reason and
revelation teach that the servant should be subject
to his master, the inferior to his superior, the wife
to her husband, and the child to the parent, and
that for conscience' sake, because it is the will of
God, yet socialism considers all this as a violation
of the equal rights and duties of all. According to
socialistic views, each one has the right to submit to
those laws and that authority which he himself has
acknowledged and approved. Thus the principle of
authority^ as coming from God and requiring obedi-
ence for conscience' sake, is subverted. That so-
cialism dissolves the marriage union, not only in the

48 Untcnablcness of the Principles of Socialism.

Christian sense, but also in the juridical sense, we
shall have occasion to see when we treat of the rela-
tion of socialism to the family.

3. Socialism is no less in contradiction with Chris-
tian teaching on the rights of property. Christ no
more emphatically condemns the immoderate quest
of riches, and no more forcibly recommends poverty
of spirit as a higher degree of perfection, than He
clearly acknowledges the justice of private property,
also in the materials of labor. He has not abolished
the moral precepts of the Old Law as laid down in
the Decalogue : nay, He has enforced them anew.1
In the New Testament as well as in -the Old it is a
breach of the divine law even to covet our neighbor's
field, house, or oxen. To the rich youth who asked
to be instructed on the way to salvation Christ an-
swered that he should keep the commandments of
the Decalogue ; and He added the counsel : " If
thou wilt be perfect, sell what thou hast and give to
the poor, . . . and come, follow Me." Could Christ
speak thus if He considered private property, to
which certainly belong houses and lands, as unjust?
To Ananias St. Peter answered he might have kept
his land if he chose. Among the first followers of
Christ and the apostles there were many who pos-
sessed private property (e.g., Martha, Joseph of
Arimathea, Philemon). Like Christ Himself and
His apostles, the Church at all times acknowledged
the right of private property in the materials of
labor (lands, tenements, produce, etc.). It is there-
fore contrary to the teaching of Christianity to con-
demn all such private property as unjust or to
brand it as " theft," as socialism actually does.

1 Cf. Wilmers, Lehrbuch der Religion, vol. iii, p. 72, sq.

Materialistic View of Life. 49

4. Christianity forbids revolution — that is, a vio-
lent subversion of the lawfully existing social order.
But socialism is, according to the acknowledgment
of its own leaders and representatives, an essentially
revolutionary movement. True, when this reproach
is made to social democrats they take refuge in
the ambiguity of the word " revolution " ; they say
that there are also peaceful and constitutional rev-
olutions. However, this answer is illusory : the
learned and cultured leaders of the social demo-
cratic party are not so simple as to believe that all
private owners would freely surrender their posses-
sions to the community, that the Church would
freely renounce its institutions and its possessions,
that monarchs would freely descend from their
thrones, and that the nobility would sacrifice their
inherited rights.

Karl Marx declared at the congress of the Hague in 1872 :
" In most countries of Europe violence must be the lever of
our social reform. We must finally have recourse to violence
in order to establish the rule of labor. . . . The revolution
must be universal, and we find a conspicuous example in
the Commune of Paris, which has failed because in other
capitals — Berlin and Madrid — a simultaneous revolutionary
movement did not break out in connection with this mighty
upheaval of the proletariat in Paris." These words require
no comment.

Bebel, commenting in the German Reichstag upon occur-
rences in Paris, says : " These events are but a slight skir-
mish in the war which the proletariat is prepared to wage
against all palaces." On another occasion he declared that
this reform cannot be brought about by sprinkling rose-
water. In one of his works1 he writes as follows on-the ap-
plication of violence : " We must not shudder at the thought
of the possible employment of violence ; we must not raise

1 Unsere Ziele, p. 44.

50 Untenableness of the Principles of Socialism.

an alarm-cry at the suppression of 'existing rights,' at
violent expropriation, etc. History teaches that at all times
new ideas, as a rule, were realized by a violent conflict with
the defenders of the past, and that the combatants for new
ideas struck as deadly blows as possible at the defenders of
antiquity. Not without reason does Karl Marx, in his work
on Capital, exclaim : Violence is the obstetrician that waits
on every ancient society which is about to give birth to a
new one ; violence is in itself a social factor." From all this
it appears to evidence that socialism and Christianity are no
less opposed to each other than darkness and light, and that
whoever knows what socialism is, and what it aims at, can
only at the sacrifice of Christianity and religion in general
join its ranks.

5. Yet why should we labor so much to show the
conflict between socialism and Christianity while we
have the express official testimony of the socialists
themselves upon the fact ? The German social
democracy in its official platform declares religion
to be a " private matter." Thus the socialistic
state, at least, is altogether divorced from religion,
— non-religious and atheistic. And since the entire
education of youth, according to socialists, is the
business of the state, it follows that education
should take no cognizance of religion ; in other
words, that it should be non-religious and godless.
The community as such should not concern itself
with God and religion, but must consider both as
equally indifferent. Such principles can manifestly
proceed only from contempt of religion, and can
only lead to open persecution of the Church. Let
us suppose that the Church wishes to erect bishoprics
and parishes, to appoint priests for the care of souls,
to control the religious education of youth, to make
laws and regulations in regard to marriage, to in-

Materialistic View of Life. 5 *

stitute feasts, etc. — would, in that case, the socialistic
state leave the Church at perfect liberty ? Would it
be possible for church and state, which are both con-
cerned with the same human beings, to avoid a con-
flict ? And if the socialistic state would force priests
and religious, nay, even bishops, to abandon their
vocations and to contribute their share to the public
production of wealth — would not that be an open
violation of the Church's rights ? Would it not lead
to perpetual conflicts, which would finally develop
into downright persecution ? And what would be
the result if the Church would claim a right to at
least so much ground as would suffice for its
churches, convents, parsonages, hospitals, seminaries,
etc., and, moreover, if it should demand labor-power
and materials for the erection of such institutions?
Would not the socialistic state, in that case, from its
standpoint, be forced flatly to refuse such demands
on the part of the Church, and thus violate the
Church's most sacred rights, and take away, as it
were, the ground from beneath her feet ? The ap-
parent permission of religion in the socialistic state
as a private affair is, therefore, a mere illusion.
Socialists are not prepared to give offence to those
who still maintain in their hearts some attachment
to religion by demanding from them all at once the
surrender of religion. Of its very nature socialism
is the enemy of every religion which undertakes to
raise the aspirations of men from earth to heaven,
and to preach to man that he does not live on bread
alone.

6. It is not by mere chance that the most noted
socialists are so outspoken in their hatred of religion,

5 2 Untcnablcness of the Principles of Socialism.

and that they generally indulge in the most irreligious
and blasphemous language against religion.

The expression " draft on eternity " ( Wechsel auf das
Jenseits), the trite blasphemy with which they characterize
the Christian efforts of social reform, is well known. The
Social-Demokrat, the recent official organ of the German
socialists, had almost on every page the most virulent abuse
of what it called "clerical ascendency," and was generally
bristling with the most shocking blasphemies. And
its successor, the Berlin Volksblatt, the present official
party organ, yields in naught to its predecessor. In a
Christmas reflection (No. 301) it accuses Christianity of ful-
filling none of its promises. " We know," it says, " that
Christianity has not brought redemption. We believe in
no Redeemer; but we believe in redemption. No man, no
God in human form, no Saviour, can redeem humanity.
Only humanity itself — only laboring humanity — can save
humanity."

Karl Marx allows no opportunity to pass without an open
or covert thrust at Christianity. According to him, religion
is an "absurd popular sentiment," a "fantastic degradation
of human nature." "Man makes religion," he says, " not
religion man." Then, again, religion is "the sentiment of a
heartless world, as it is the spirit of spiritless conditions. It
is the opinion of the people." "The abolition of religion as
the deceptive happiness of the people is a necessary condi-
tion for their true happiness." " Religion is only an illusory
sun, which revolves around man as long as man fails to
revolve around himself."1

Bebel, in the words of the frivolous poet Heine, leaves
" heaven to the angels and the sparrows." 2 Theology, if we
are to believe him, is in contradiction with natural science,
and will disappear in the society of the future.3 Again :
"The conviction that heaven is on this earth," and that " to

1 Deutsch-Franzos. Jahrblicher; Paris, 1844, p. 71. Volksblatt,
No. 281. Kapital, vol. i. p. 19.
8 Unsere Ziele, p. 38.
8 Die Frau, p. 183.

Socialistic Theory of Value. 53

die is to end all," will, in his opinion, impel all to live a
natural life.1 Another leader of the social democrats
characterizes their philosophy as " atheism in religion,
democratic republicanism in politics, collectivism in social
economy." 2

Liebknecht is of opinion that the dependence of the
forms of religion upon economic conditions is so evident
that there is no need of a conflict with religion. " We may
peacefully take our stand upon the ground of socialism, and
thus conquer the stupidity of the masses in as far as this
stupidity reveals itself in religious forms and dogmas."3

Dietzgen, in his blasphemous sermons on " Religion and
Social Democracy," surpasses all others in his savage on-
slaught against religion. As a characteristic of his style
we quote the following: " If religion is to be understood as
a belief in supersensible, material substances and forces, if
it consists in a belief in higher gods and spirits, [social]
democracy has no religion. In the place of religion it sets
up the consciousness of the insufficiency of the indi-
vidual, who for his perfection requires to be supplemented,
and, consequently, subordinated to the entire body social.
A cultured human society is the supreme good in which we
believe. Our hope rests upon the organization of social
democracy. This organization shall make that /0z/^ a reality
for which religious fanatics have displayed such irrational
enthusiasm."4

SECTION II.

ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES.
I. Socialistic Theory of Value.

CAPITAL, according to Karl Marx, comes to the
world " dripping from every pore from head to foot
with blood and dirt." 5 It is, according to its very

1 Die Frau, p. 188.

2 Schaffle, Aussichtslosigkeit der Socialdemokratie, p. 3.

3 Berliner Volksblatt, 1890, No. 281.

4 Religion der Socialdemokratie, pp. 33, 34.
6 Kapital, 4 ed., p. 726.

54 Untcnablcness of the Principles of Socialism.

nature, nothing else than the unpaid-for, stolen labor
of the workman ; or, as Lassalle calls it, " ill-gotten
gain." In order to substantiate this death verdict
on capital Marx avails himself, as we have seen,
of his peculiar theory of value. He distinguishes
two kinds of value — value in use and value in ex-
change. Value in use consists in the utility of an
object to satisfy human wants ; value in exchange
consists in the ratio in which commodities are ex-
changeable for one another. Value in use, it is
true, forms the basis of value in exchange, in so far
as only useful things can have exchange-value. But
in other respects value in exchange is entirely inde-
pendent of value in use. The exchange-value is
determined by the labor embodied in an object.
By labor, however, we are not to understand here
this or that kind of labor — e.g., tailoring or shoe-
making — but human "labor in the abstract."

" A value in use cr an object has value (exchange-value)
because human labor considered in the abstract is embodied
or materialized in it. But how are we to measure the
amount of its value? By the amount of 'value-creating
substance,' i.e., labor, contained in it. The quantity of labor
itself is determined by the time employed, and the labor-
time again is measured by the unit of certain periods, as
hours, days, etc." * By labor-time we are to understand,
according to the explanation of Marx, the " socially neces-
sary labor-time," or the time required " to produce a certain
value with given normal social conditions of production, and
with the average social degree of skill and intensity of
labor."2 How Marx has utilized the principle that
exchange-value is something intrinsically independent of
use-value and consists only in " crystallized labor-time " for
the explanation of capitalistic "surplus-making," we have
already shown.

1 Kapital, p. 5. 2 Ibid., p. 14.

Socialistic Theory of Value. 55

For the fundamental principle that the exchange-
value of an object is not determined by its use-value,
but exclusively by the labor expended upon it,
Marx can appeal to the authority of the greatest
political economists, Adam Smith, Ricardo, and
others. Socialism in this as in many other regards
is only the lineal descendant of liberalism ; it only
draws the logical inferences from the principles of
liberalism. Not until Marx, Lassalle, and other
socialists had taken hold of this principle to use it
as a deft weapon against private capital did any
misgiving arise concerning it ; then authors began to
abandon it.

Marx, moreover, rightly distinguishes between
value in use and value in exchange. This distinc-
tion we find already adopted by Aristotle1 and his
commentators. Aristotle distinguishes a twofold
use of earthly goods : the one is proper to an object
according to its peculiar character (xprjo'is oiKeioi) ;
the other is common to it with all other objects
(Xpr/o-is OVK oiKeia). The philosopher illustrates
this distinction "by the example of a shoe. A shoe
has a twofold use : the first is peculiar to it in con-
tradistinction to other objects, and consists in this,
that it can be used for the protection of the foot ;
the second consists in this, that it may be exchanged
for other goods. This second use is common to the
shoe with all other objects of merchandise. It may
therefore be called common use or secondary use.

This distinction of use-value is much clearer, simpler, and
more objective than those which we generally meet with in
the works of modern political economists. Many call use-

1 Politic. I. 9. St. Thorn, in I. Pol. 1. 7. Silv. Maurus in I.
Polit. c. 6, n. 2.

56 Untcnablcness of the Principles of Socialism.

value the fitness of an object for the use of the possessor
himself, and exchange-value the fitness of the object to be
given in exchange. But exchange itself is a use of the ob-
ject by the possessor. Consequently the first member of the
definition contains also the second. Others call use-value
immediate value, and exchange-value mediate value.
Others1 again reject this distinction altogether, and divide
value into subjective and objective. As often as we shall,
according to the ruling custom, distinguish between use-
value and exchange-value, we shall understand by use-value
the fitness of an article for all kinds of use, the use of ex-
change alone excepted.

If Marx had confined himself to the distinction
of these two kinds of value, no serious objection
could be raised against him ; but he has completely
rent them asunder. Value in use, according to him,
is no factor in the determination of value in ex-
change. But this assertion on his part is unproved
and incorrect.

I. It is unproved. The chief argument which
Marx adduces for his opinion is the following:
Value in exchange must be something common to all
merchandise ; but this common element cannot be
anything else than the human labor embodied in
it, taken in the abstract. Therefore the labor con-
tained in an object forms its exchange- value.

We grant that exchange-value is something com-
mon to all merchandise, because the various objects
of merchandise may be compared with each other
according to their value in exchange. But we deny
that this common element consists in the labor con-
tained in them alone. Marx does not produce any
arguments for this opinion, but only mere assertions.

1 Schonberg's Handbuch der politischen Oekonomie, 2 ed., vol.
i. p. 156.

Socialistic Theory of Value. 57

"The common element in all kinds of wares cannot be a
geometrical, physical, chemical, or any other natural quality
of the goods themselves. Their physical properties come
into consideration only in as far as they go to constitute
their utility or use-value. On the other hand, the exchange-
ableness of wares is evidently characterized by abstracting
from their usefulness. Tn regard to exchange the use-value
of one object is just as much as the use-value of another,
provided it be forthcoming in due proportion. As to their
use-value, goods, in the first instance, differ in quality; but
as to their exchange-value they differ only in quantity, and
contain not a particle of use-value." 1

This passage contains only assertions in lieu of
arguments ; nay, false statements presented to us as
" evident." And upon these statements depends the
whole system of Karl Marx. We are surprised, in
fact, that Marx so confidently affirms without proof
that apart from labor there is no common element in
different goods. Aristotle, to whom he repeatedly
appeals, could have taught him better. This great
philosopher teaches expressly that there is a com-
mon element in all wares, according to which they
can be compared with one another and estimated.
This common measure or standard of exchangeable
goods, according to the philosopher,2 is usefulness,
that is, their fitness for supplying the wants of man-
kind.

2. But the assertion of Marx that labor alone
constitutes exchange-value is not only gratuitous:
it is also untrue. Unwittingly Marx himself has
written his own refutation. He says : Within the

1 Kapital, p. 12.

2 z/ei apa evi TIVL itdvra uerpeicr^ai . . . TOVTO
d'ecrrl Ty jiiev a/b/$ez'a 1} ;r/3ez'cr, 77 Ttavra crvve%ei. — Ethic,
v. 3.

58 Untenableness of the Principles of Socialism.

same ratio of exchange value, the use-value of one
object is as great as that of another if the commodity
is only forthcoming in the same proportion. Why
must the use-value be forthcoming in the same
proportion ? Evidently because in the determi-
nation of the exchange-value the usefulness of an
object is by no means indifferent, but a decisive ele-
ment. Moreover, how is it that, even according to
the concessions of Marx himself, usefiil objects only
can have exchange-value for society? Certainly
because use-value or utility is an essential element
in exchange-value. If one, for instance, with the
greatest expenditure of labor manufactured boots
from pasteboard, yet he could not find sale for them,
they would have no exchange-value, because they
would be useless ; in other words, because they would
have no use-value. Use-value is, therefore, an essential
element of exchange-value.

But there are objects of use-value which have no
exchange-value. Air and light, for instance, are
useful though not exchangeable commodities.
Very true ; but what follows from this fact ? Only
this, that mere usefulness does not suffice to con-
stitute exchange-value ; that other conditions must
be added ; but it by no means follows that those
things which have exchange-value do not owe this
value at least in part to their usefulness. What
would Marx say to the following argument ? There
are men who are no artists ; therefore the notion of
man does not belong to the notion of an artist.
The conclusion drawn by Marx is no more logical.
In order that a useful object may have exchange-
value it must be fit to pass into the exclusive posses-
sion of an individual, and must not be forthcoming

Socialistic Theory of Value. 59

in such quantities that all can dispose of it at pleas-
ure. But this supposed, the exchange-value of an
object depends chiefly upon its use-value, or utility.
In the primeval forests of South America wood has
no exchange-value, either because there is no one to
use it, or because every one can have it for nothing,
like air and water. But suppose a merchant brings
several shiploads of different kinds of wood to a
European harbor, what will then be the standard of
its value ? Is it the amount of labor, the amount of
expense and time, which the transportation has cost?
Certainly not ; otherwise all different species of
wood conveyed from South America would sell at
the same price, which is not the case. The better
and more durable material will sell at a higher
rate. Fine cedar or mahogany, abstracting alto-
gether from the labor expended on it, has a much
greater exchange-value than pine or birch.

By a thousand such instances we might show that
the value or price of an article is determined in the
first place by the general estimate of its usefulness.
Good wine sells at a higher rate than bad wine, al-
though the vintner may have "expended the same
amount of labor on the preparation of both. Why
do our mine-owners sell coal from the same mine at
different prices? Because the quality is different.
In short, it is the quality, or the different degrees of
objective goodness, that generally determines the ex-
change-value of objects independently of the amount
of labor consumed upon them.

It would be carrying coal to Newcastle to at-
tempt any further proofs of this truth. Nor can it
be objected against the examples alleged that in all
cases labor is necessary to give the object real ex-

60 Untenablcness of the Principles of Socialism.

changeable value, for we do not deny that labor
has a certain influence upon the exchange-value ;
but we do say that labor alone does not constitute
exchange-value. For the rest, labor generally comes
into account only as far as it tends to give useful-
ness to a thing. Besides, there are in nature also
objects which require no labor in order to be made
useful, but which may be directly appropriated and
exchanged for other commodities. Such are, for in*
stance, coal oil, wild fruits, etc.1

If that which gives exchange-value to things is
not labor alone, but above all their utility and fitness
to supply human wants, all further inferences against
modern private capital which Marx thence deduces
have no convincing force. Most particularly is the
conclusion incorrect that the exchange-value of
human labor-power is to be determined by the
expense of its production. For even in the sup-
position that two laborers required exactly the same
amount for the sustenance of themselves and their
families, yet their labor-power could have quite
different exchange-values, if the one was more ex-
pert, more talented, skilful, and trusty than the
other. What determines the exchange-value of
labor-power as well as of all other commodities is, in
the first place, its usefulness.

To meet a possible objection we would here re-
mark that even in the socialistic state the exchange-
value of goods would still remain, and could not,
even in socialistic circumstances, be determined by
the labor spent in its production ; for not only in
commerce with foreign nations, but also in the

1 Cf. Von Hammerstein, S. J., Stimmen aus Maria Laach, vol.
x. p. 426. Hitze, Kapital und Arbeit, 1880, p. 9, sq.

The Iron Law of Wages. 61

division of produce among individuals, the exchange-
value of goods would have to be taken into account,
and even in this case it would be determined chiefly
by the standard of usefulness. If two laborers in
the socialistic state would perform the same amount
of work, it would be unjust to give to one as a re-
muneration a case of Johannisberger or Ru'des-
heimer, and to the other the same amount of bad
Mosel wine, or cider, on the plea that both the pro-
ductions cost the same amount of labor. So also in
the socialistic state more labor could be procured
by a peck of good wheat than by the same amount
of bad wheat, although the expenditure of labor
upon the bad wheat may be just the same as upon
the good. The same may be said of all similar com-
modities.

II. The Iron Laiv of Wages.

i. The iron law of wages was the chief weapon
used by Lassalle against existing capitalism. Here-
in liberal social economists, Adam Smith, Ricardo,
J. B. Say, and others had prepared the way for him.
Lassalle appeals with seeming comfort to these
great authorities in establishing his iron law.

"The iron economic law," says Lassalle, " which in our
day, under the rule of supply and demand, determines
the wages of the laborer, is the following: The average
wages is always confined to the necessary sustenance which,
according to the custom of a given nation, is necessary to
insure the possibility of existence and propagation. This
is the point around which actual wages oscillates like the
swing of a pendulum, without ever remaining long either
above or below this standard. Wages cannot permanently
rise over 'this average ; otherwise there would result from
the easier and better condition of the laborers an increase

62 Untenableness of the Principles of Socialism.

of the laboring population and a supply of hands which
would again reduce the wages to, or even below, the average
point.

" Nor can wages permanently fall below the average of the
necessary sustenance of life ; for this would give rise to
emigration, celibacy, prevention of propagation, and finally
the diminution of the laboring population by want, which
consequently would reduce the supply of hands and again
raise wages to its former or even a higher rate. The actual
average wages consists, therefore, in a constant undulation
around this centre of gravity, to which it must always return,
around which it must revolve, standing sometimes above
and sometimes below." '

"That laborers and wages continually revolve in a circle,
the circumference of which can at most reach the margin of
what is barely sufficient to satisfy the necessary wants of
human sustenance .... is a circumstance which never
changes." *

Lassalle, it is true, admits that these customary necessities
of life are greater in our day than in former times ; but
notwithstanding all this the laboring classes are, in given
social circumstances, always confined to what is barely
necessary for the continuance of existence and of propaga-
tion. Therefore, according to Lassalle, the laborer has no
prospect of bettering his condition.3

According to the teaching of Ricardo, the average wages
will always, in the long run, coincide with the cost of
production. Ricardo distinguishes between the natural
price and the market price of labor. The natural price is
that which is necessary generally to make existence and
propagation possible. The market price, on the other hand,
is that which under the law of supply and demand is actually
paid for labor. The latter may sometimes exceed the
natural price, and sometimes fall below it ; but it will always
fall back to the natural price. It may be conceded that
Lassalle has expressed this law in more odious terms than

1 Offenes Antwortschreiben, p. 10. Arbeiter-Lesebuch, p. 5.

2 Offenes Antwortschreiben, p. 12.

3 Arbeiter-Lesebuch, p. 27.

The Iron Law of Wages. 63

did Ricardo, but in substance their teaching exactly coin-
cides. Besides Ricardo, Adam Smith, and Say, Lassalle cites
for his opinion also Malthus, Bastiat, and John Stuart Mill.

2. This is the dreadful law of which socialists
have made use until the most recent times to dis-
credit the institution of private property.1 But
they appeal to this law without reason ; for al-
though the law were correct nothing would thence
follow against private ownership. For the law is
based upon the supposition of unlimited competi-
tion in industry and the supreme rule of supply
and demand ; but these excesses can be remedied
without the wholesale abolition of private prop-
erty. Until the most recent times there existed
almost everywhere certain social restrictions which
afforded protection to the weak against the unjust
oppression of the strong. It is the business of
economic policy to see that by the co-operation of
civil legislation, on the one hand, and private effort,
on the other, a certain organization may be brought
about, suited to the modern conditions of industry,
which will secure protection for the weak against
the violence of the strong. If this is once attained,
the iron wage law, as conceived and formulated by
Lassalle, will soon fall into abeyance.

Social democrats in their attacks against the ex-
isting order of things are cunning, but not always
honest. " Behold the dread iron law of wages,
which fastens you to want and misery. Only social
democracy can relieve you ! " Thus they exclaim
in the meetings of the laboring classes ; — just as if
every one who disapproved of unlimited competition

1 Cf. Gotha programme, given above.

64 Untenableness of the Principles of Socialism.

was bound to join the socialistic ranks. But the
most noted socialists know full well that between
unlimited competition and socialism there are many
stages. We Catholics too — and we believe that
orthodox Protestants agree with us on this point —
wish that the laboring and agricultural classes be
legally protected against the ascendancy of capital ;
we too wish to contribute to the utmost of our
power towards securing even for the humblest
laborer a comfortable domestic life. What is neces-
sary for this consummation we have had occa-
sion to show at greater length in our treatment
of the rights of the state.1 Here we shall only
say that socialism is not the right remedy against
existing social ills. It may remove, it is true,
unlimited competition ; but it can remove it only by
the suppression of all free action, by forcing all the
members of the state into the grooves of a mechan-
ical industrial state organization.

3. We might content ourselves with the preceding
exposition as far as the defence of private property is
concerned. But since the iron wage law plays such
a prominent part in socialistic literature we deem
it expedient here to submit it to a closer examina-
tion.

a. If by the iron law Lassalle would only assert
that under the rule of supply and demand a certain
tendency exists to confine wages generally to what
is barely necessary for the support of life, we would
have no quarrel with him. For this tendency is a
natural result of the selfishness of the rich, who are
at the same time the mightier class. The average
man is naturally inclined to purchase at a low and

1 Cf. Moralphilosophie, vol. ii. p. 508, sqq.

The Iron Law of Wages. 65

to sell at a high rate. As the laborer wishes to sell
his labor-power at the highest possible rate, so also
the employer will endeavor to purchase labor at the
lowest possible figure. But the rich employer is
commonly the mightier, and will therefore succeed
oftener to reduce wages below the normal figure than
the laborer will succeed in raising it above the
normal standard. Yet this universal tendency, which
is the result of human selfishness, is by no means an
economic law ; else it might be also regarded as an
economic law that dealers adulterate goods and that
men grow rich by idleness.

b. That Lassalle's principle can be regarded as
an economic law lacks every semblance of proof.1
In order that an economic law, in the proper sense
of the word, may be established, we must have a fact
which from certain permanent causes necessarily
exists in all places and at all times. This, however,
is not the case with the supposed law of Lassalle ;
or, if it is, it has not thus far been proved. Let us
examine the arguments which Lassalle, and before
him Ricardo, adduces.

Wages, he says, cannot permanently rise beyond
the average of what is barely necessary, according to
custom, for the support of life ; for else there would
result an increase of the laboring population, and
consequently of the supply of labor hands, which
would again reduce wages to the former standard.
But is it true, let us ask, that the laboring popula-
tion will increase in the same proportion as the
comforts of life ? Such a statement cannot be borne

1 Cf. Von Hammerstein, Stimmen aus Maria Laach, vol. x.
p. 442 ; Schonberg's Handbuch der politischen Oekonomie, vol. i.
p. 638, sq.

66 Untenableness of the Principles of Socialism.

out ; experience rather teaches the contrary. He
who would find large families in England, say, must
not seek them in the dwellings of the better-to-do
laborers, or wealthier classes, but in the poorest
tenements of the Irish laborers. In like manner, in
America large families are to be found generally
among the poorer classes of immigrants, while the
birth-rate among the wealthier classes is notoriously
low. Again, there is no land whose population
generally is better off than France, and in no land is
the rate of increase of population so low. And the
reason is evident, even though we abstract altogether
from religious influence. The better off a laboring
family is the more it is concerned, as a rule, to main-
tain its social standing and to rise to a still higher
rank. Rash marriages are more rarely entered upon
in such circles than in the lower phases of society.
It does not follow, however, that morals are purer
in the higher than in the lower strata of society.
There is another feature of the question, however,
which Lassalle overlooks. Granted that better cir-
cumstances would produce an increase of population,
yet it does not thence follow that the competition of
the laborers would increase in like manner, for it
would take a period of from sixteen to twenty years
at least to produce any marked effect of such in-
crease. Children are not from their very birth
capable of competition. Consequently, according
to the supposition of Lassalle, a laborer could for
well-nigh a generation receive more wages than
would be " necessary, according to existing customs,
for the support of life and for propagation."

It may also happen that, despite the increase of
the supply of labor wages does not diminish, as with

The Iron Law of Wages. 67

the supply also the demand may increase. If the
demand for labor increases in the same proportion
as the supply, wages remains the same ; but it may
easily happen that in many places, owing to new
enterprises, the demand for labor may steadily in-
crease for years, so that the increase of the number
of laborers does not necessarily entail the diminu-
tion of wages.

We have no proof, therefore, that wages cannot
for a considerable time exceed what is necessary for
the maintenance of life. Nor has Lassalle proved
that wages may not in some cases remain perma-
nently below this standard. In that case he thinks
emigration, celibacy, restriction of propagation, and
finally a decrease of the laboring population result-
ing from misery would ensue, which would lessen
the supply of labor hands and would bring wages
back again to its former standard.

But, as we have already remarked, poverty does
not lessen the birth-rate unless in the extreme case
in which the laborers are literally starved. It can
easily happen, and has happened, sad to say, that in
many places the laboring classes have for a long
time led a wretched life in the sense of Lassalle,
without any perceptible diminution in the birth-rate.
Poverty does not prevent marriages among the poor,
nor does it prevent propagation. The poor are pre-
cisely in this respect often much more conscientious
than those who call themselves the cultured classes.
For the rest, even though poverty might produce a
decrease in the birth-rate among the laborers, yet
the effects of this diminution would be noticeable in
the labor market only after the lapse of many years.
In the mean time the gaps would be filled up by new

68 Untenableness of the Principles of Socialism.

laborers coming from surrounding districts. Marx
has established, on the data of inquiries made by
physicians and inspectors of factories, that in many
manufacturing districts the laborers had lived for
many years in the most wretched misery without
experiencing any increase of wages.1 Lassalle's law,
therefore, whether we consider it from its favora-
ble or unfavorable aspect, remains unproved.

But it is not only unproved : it is simply false.
The principal touchstone of economic laws are facts.
Now what are the facts in regard to Lassalle's law ?
Is it true that laborers universally, at all times and
in all places, obtain wages barely sufficient for the
support of life and for propagation, and that they
are confined within the limits of what is barely nec-
essary? The question put in this way very soon
reveals the exaggeration of Lassalle's statement. It
is a fact that laborers often receive miserable wages
— too little to live, too much to die. But there are
also notable exceptions. We know many manufac-
turers who pay sufficient wages to their laborers —
wages on which they can live decently, provided
they have only a sense of order, temperance, and
economy. But if the laborers would transform every
Sunday into a day of revel their wages will certainly
be insufficient. We here abstract from the fact that
in all branches of industry there are many skilled
laborers who receive higher pay, and to whom the
iron law does not at all apply. And yet if this were
an universal law it would also be applicable to this
class of laborers.

Lassalle's law is, therefore, unproved and untrue,
and cannot be used as a weapon against the existing

1 Kapital, p. 613.

The Iron Law of Wages. 69

social order, much less can it be considered as a
basis for the socialistic movement. If, however,
from the sad facts which Lassalle advances to prove
the existence of his iron law, and which we have in
great part conceded, the conclusion should be in-
ferred that unlimited competition is of evil, we are
perfectly in accord with such an inference.

Karl Marx from the outset rejected Lassalle's iron law of
wages. Nay, in his " Criticism of the Social Democratic
Programme " he characterizes the insertion of this law in
the platform as a " revolting retrogression ;" and rightly
so, from his own standpoint. According to Lassalle, the
injustice of the wage system consists only in this, that the
laborer's wages can never go beyond a low maximum, and
thus the wage-worker is doomed to a miserable existence.
According to Marx, the wage system in the capitalistic
order of things is absolutely unjust and intolerable, because
it makes the laborer the slave of the capitalist, and permits
the workman to labor for his sustenance only, with the obli-
gation to work a certain portion of the time for nothing
merely to produce "surplus-value" for the capitalist. For
"surplus-value" is always effected at the cost of the laborer;
and as the capitalist is then only willing to carry on indus-
try when his money is likely to produce "surplus-value,"
capital is of its very nature calculated for oppression. It is
a " pitiless beast of prey." Hence he was forced to consider
the adoption of Lassalle's iron law in the socialistic pro-
gramme as a step backwards. Nay, the adoption of this
law was diametrically opposed to, and an abandonment of,
Marx's theory of "surplus-value." Hence we can easily
understand his indignation at finding the iron law on the
socialistic platform.

For the iron law of wages Marx substituted his theory of
the so-called " industrial reserve army," or the "army of
superfluous laborers, as the Erfurt programme calls it.
Marx describes this idle army as a leaden weight that handi-
caps the laborer, a ballast which depresses wages to the
lowest level, according to the exigence of capital. " That

7O Untenableness of the Principles of Socialism.

law, which maintains the equilibrium between the surplus
population or ' industrial reserve army ' and the extent and
intensity of accumulation, binds labor and capital faster
together than the bolts of Hephaestus riveted Prometheus
to the rocks. It brings in its wake an accumulation of
misery proportioned to the accumulation of capital. The
accumulation of wealth at one pole means at the same time
die accumulation of misery, vexation, slavery, ignorance,
bestialization, and moral degradation at the opposite pole,
— that is, on the part of that class who are constrained to
bring forth whatever they produce as capital." 1

The "innate" laws of the capitalistic system with its un-
limited competition effect that tradesmen and small manu-
facturers are supplanted by large industries and sink to the
level of the proletariat. Then comes the turn of the capi-
talists themselves : the weaker capitalists are "slaughtered "
by the stronger, and likewise fall back into the ranks of the
proletarians. Hand in hand with this process of demoli-
tion goes another process, which tends to make the laborer
superfluous. Competition forces the employer to ever
cheaper production. He must, therefore, not only compel
the laborer to prolong his labor as much as possible beyond
the necessary labor- time, and substitute for the work of the
laboring man the cheaper work of women and children ; but
he must also endeavor by the aid of machinery to make
labor as productive as possible ; nay, as far as possible, he
must endeavor to make laborers superfluous. While, there-
fore, the capitalistic system, on the one hand, increases the
ranks of the proletariat, it tends to make them, on the other
hand, ever more superfluous. At times when industry is at
high pressure the proletarians, who are always at the disposal
of capital, are called into requisition ; but on the approach
of a crisis they are again "thrown into the streets," without
employment. With the increase of the proletariat goes
hand in hand the increase of misery !

That many of the phenomena pointed out by Marx are
not merely the productions of an overheated imagination is
but too true. To crown his description of the misery of

1 Kapital, p. 611.

The Iron Law of Wages. 71

the laboring classes, he opens to us a horrible vista into the
indescribable misery of the laborer in the most advanced of
all industrial nations — England. We do not deny the facts ;
but we emphatically deny the correctness of the causes
assigned by Marx. His exposition is altogether founded on
his theory of " surplus-value," a factor of his theory on value
in general, which we refuted above (p. 18). If the principle
is proved to be false, the inferences will of themselves fall to
the ground. Moreover, Marx's procedure presupposes his
" materialistic view of history as an immanent (material)
process of development."

The facts advanced by Marx, in as far as they can be
shown to be true facts, may be explained without his theory
of "surplus value." They are the natural and necessary
outcome of the liberal economic system. After the disinte-
gration of society by the demolition of the classes and cor-
porations of former times, and the introduction of absolute
freedom of industry, the wild and disorderly struggle of
competition began, in which craft and fraud and violence
bore the victory. This struggle, together with modern
mechanical discoveries, which proved advantageous almost
exclusively to the capitalists, necessarily proved a disad-
vantage to the middle classes, and swelled the numbers of
the proletariat. Add to this the increase of that pagan,
materialistic selfishness that knows no principle of justice
or charity, but makes all things subservient to self-interest,
and it becomes easily intelligible that, without an " imma-
nent " process of evolution in the sense of Herr Marx, such
conditions of human misery as he describes, and as actually
exist in some countries, may easily be induced.

As these conditions have been brought about, not by the
laws of internal evolution, but by a perverse social policy,
they may also be remedied by the opposite social policy,
particularly by legislative protection of the weaker classes,
by the institution and furtherance of co-operative organiza-
tions among the lower classes, but most especially by the
revival of a true Christian spirit in society.

72 Untenableness of the Principles of Socialism.

III. Liberalism the Root of the Evil.

After we have examined the principles of social-
ism, we may now answer the question in what rela-
tion it stands to modern liberalism. By liberalism
we do not here understand, as is manifest, a certain
political party known under this name, but rather a
revolutionary and anti-Christian tendency in political,
social, and religious matters. Socialists themselves
acknowledge that they have only drawn the logical
conclusions of those principles set up by liberals;
and liberalism is accused by Catholics generally of
having given birth to socialism. The liberals, on
their part, with horror and indignation disclaim all
connection with socialism. Liberalism does not
profess, so say its defenders, to abolish private prop-
erty : it will only make ownership free. Nor does it
profess to advocate a servile industrial organization :
it only advocates unrestricted freedom for all.

Notwithstanding all the protestations of the liber-
als, we cannot but consider socialism as the lineal
descendant of liberalism, however much the parent
may try to disown its offspring. The question is
this, whether the principles set up and defended by
liberals logically lead to socialism or not ; and this
question we believe must be answered in the affirma-
tive. We are the more willing to enter fully upon
this question since the answer to it will give us an
opportunity to expose the true sources of the mod-
ern revolutionary movement. It would be erroneous
to regard socialism, which now threateningly raises
its head in all civilized nations, as an artificial move-
ment, brought about by a few revolutionary char-

Liberalism the Root of the Evil. 73

acters. No ; this movement is a natural outgrowth
of the modern social development, which owes its
existence to liberalism.

i. The deepest roots of socialism are atheism and
materialism. True, many atheists prefer to call
themselves " monists " in order to escape the odious
name of materialists ; but it is all the same. For,
whether we deify matter or reduce God into matter,
it imports little, as both processes lead to the same
result. Both theories equally contain the germs of
socialism. If it is once admitted that all ends with
this life, that man has no higher destiny than the
lower animals which wallow in the mud, who, then,
can require of the poor and oppressed, whose life is
a continued struggle for existence, that they bear
their hard lot with patience and resignation, and
look on with indifference while their neighbors are
clad in purple and fine linen, and daily revel at
sumptuous banquets ? Who can prove to them
from the standpoint of atheism that it is meet and
just that one should pine in poverty and want while
another enjoys abundance of all things, since all
have the same nature, and no reason can be given on
atheistic grounds why the goods of this world should
belong to one rather than to another? If the athe-
istic and materialistic theory is true, the demands of
socialism are certainly just — that all the goods and
enjoyments of this life should be equally divided
among all ; that it is, therefore, unjust that one
should live in a magnificent palace and enjoy all
pleasures without labor, while another is living in a
squalid cellar or cold garret, and cannot even with
the greatest effort obtain enough bread to appease
his hunger.

74 Untenableness of the Principles of Socialism.

Now, who is it that has preached and propagated
atheism in all its forms? Who has fought by all
ways and means to restrict the influence of Christi-
anity in the school and in public life ? Who is it
that raised Darwinism to a dogma and popularized
it for the ignorant masses ? Who is it that even in
our own day, in speech and in writing, in the chairs
of universities and in public assemblies, preaches
the grossest atheism? It is the representatives of
liberalism, beginning with the French Encyclopedists
down to our own university professors, who combat
and decry the faith in God and in Christ the Saviour
as stupidity and superstition. Hence Marx himself
utters the sarcastic taunt against them, that atheism
seems to them a venial fault compared with the
crime of criticising the traditional conditions of
property.1 Wherein they have sinned therein they
are punished.

2. The second great principle of the revolutionary
party is equality. Here again socialism takes the
same stand as liberalism, and draws the last conse-
quence from its principles. Who invented the
watchword freedom, equality, and brotherhood, and
thus gave an appearance of right and even of duty
to the bloody French Revolution? It was the
representatives of liberalism. The worthies of the
revolution — the Jacobins and Girondists — were the
true forefathers of the modern liberals, who delight
in their principles and phraseology, and continually
talk freedom and equality. In virtue of this free-
dom and equality the ancient order of things was
subverted ; the privileges of the nobility and the

1 Kapital, Vorrede, p. ix.

Liberalism the Root of the Evil. 75

prerogatives of the Church were abolished ; every
memory of ancient institutions was effaced ; the
people were declared as sovereign ; and, finally, the
citizen " Capet " was brought to the scaffold. True,
when the liberal bourgeoisie had once taken hold of
the reins of government they were eager to put a
stop to the further development of their principles.
After the Church had been persecuted and, as far
as this was possible to human power, suppressed,
the heroes of the Revolution — Robespierre at their
head — were eager to introduce the worship of a
supreme being in order to check the masses. After
the property of the Church and of the nobility had
been seized upon, and individuals had enriched
themselves from the wealth of the nation, it was de-
clared in the constitution that private property was
sacred and inviolable. After the aristocracy had
been removed and the hierarchy of the Church had
been suppressed, they determined to establish an
aristocracy of genius and wealth. Was such a step
consistent ? Had they any right to demand of the
people to be satisfied with that equality which con-
ferred upon it a semblance of freedom, but left it
totally bereft of protection, and finally surrendered
it to the power of the capitalists? Was the people
not entitled to require that they should redeem their
promises, and finally establish perfect equality in
real earnest? We consider that demand as logical
and just, according to the principles of liberalism.

3. The close relation of socialism to liberalism
may be still more clearly shown in reference to the
adopted theory of value. He who accepts this
modern socialistic theory of value — that the ex-
change-value of all productions is only the result of

76 Untenableness of the Principles of Socialism.

labor, or accumulated labor — cannot possibly con-
sider as just the conditions of modern production in
which the laborer is always at a shortage, but must
logically come to the principles of socialism. But
who first established the socialistic theory of value ?
Is this theory the invention of socialism ? By no
means ; it is the traditional doctrine of liberalism.
Adam Smith, Ricardo, Say, and all the so-called
classical political economists belong to the liberal
school ; and they have almost without exception laid
down the principle that all value was to be credited
to labor. Lassalle, as we have already shown, in
establishing his theory of value could point to a
stately line of liberal social economists. In recent
times this theory, however, is either wholly aban-
doned or at least essentially modified by liberals.
They soon discovered what a dangerous weapon
they put into the hands of socialism. But it was
too late. The fact cannot be concealed from the
world that liberalism forged the dangerous weapon
which socialism is using for the subversion of the
existing social order.

4. Not only theoretically, but also practically, did
liberalism pave the way for socialism. The way was
smoothed chiefly by the introduction and enforce-
ment of unlimited industrial competition, with all the
liberties and privileges which it brings in its train.
All protecting organizations which, in the course of
time, had arisen to counteract the unlimited compe-
tition, whether in theory or in practice, were, in the
name of freedom, violently suppressed. Even the
laws against usury were abolished in the interest
of freedom. Thus society was disintegrated, the
weaker industries were isolated, and owing to un-

Liberalism the Root of tJie Evil. 77

limited competition fell as victims to the superior
power of capital. Moreover, since modern discov-
eries were made to serve merely the interests of
capital, the solid middle class, which formed the
strongest support of the existing social order, began
more and more to disappear, and society was divided
into two hostile classes — the wealthier bourgeoisie,
on the one hand, with their implacable hatred against
the Church and the nobility, with their insatiable
avarice and reckless oppression of the laborers as of
an inferior race ; on the other hand, the huge masses
of the poor, particularly laborers in factories, filled
with hatred and revenge against their capitalistic
oppressors. Thus a fertile soil was prepared for the
social democracy. It needed only agitators to make
the " disinherited " acquainted with the results of
agnostic science, and to fling the firebrand of rebel-
lion into the masses of the laborers — and there
stood the social democracy full-fledged.

Moreover, liberalism endeavored to bring about a
centralization in all departments of social economy,
not only by utilizing modern discoveries in the field
of industry, but still more by its control of educa-
tion, and even of science, religion, and politics. Now,
socialism, according to its very nature, aims at the
greatest possible centralization. The means of pro-
duction, the organization of labor, the distribution
of produce, education, instruction — all is to be con-
trolled by the state. The state takes upon itself
the duties of the separate community, of the family,
and of the individual. Hence Schafrle1 logically
concludes that "all centralization of the liberal state

Quintessenz, p. 29.

78 Untenableness of the Principles of Socialism.

favors socialism, and is congenial to it." But who
has employed all means to centralize education,
church government, marriage discipline, the care
of the poor? Who has abolished the independence
of municipalities, churches and religious orders, and
given all into the hands of the state? This is the
work of liberalism. Socialism is, therefore, nothing
else than the logical development of the liberal idea
of the state. The state is the source of all right,
say the liberals ; to this principle socialism can with
perfect right appeal against liberalism and in favor
of its own entire programme.

When we make liberalism responsible for these
disagreeable facts, and impeach it with having pro-
duced and nourished socialism, would we thereby
take up the defence of the latter ? By no means.
Our object is only to show that liberalism and
socialism are closely related to each other, and that
there is, therefore, no possibility of an efficient stand
against socialism from the side of liberalism. Lib-
eralism has but one means against socialism — the
police. As soon as it tries other remedies its incon-
sistency and inefficiency against socialism become
lamentably evident. He who will make an efficient
stand against social democracy or socialism, and
bring about a permanent betterment of our social
conditions, must renounce liberalism and return to
the platform of full and unrestricted Christianity.

CHAPTER III.
SOCIALISM IMPRACTICABLE.

SECTION I.

STATE OF THE QUESTION.

BEFORE we approach the refutation of the demands
of socialism we must determine more accurately
what we intend to prove.

1. When we call the socialistic demands im-
practicable or impossible, we would confine this
statement to modern democratic socialism. We do
not maintain that a social order, such as that de-
vised by the socialists, involves a contradiction or is
impracticable under all conditions. If men gener-
ally were entirely unselfish, industrious, obedient,
filled with interest for the common weal, always
ready to give everybody else the preference, and to
choose for themselves the last and most disagree-
able place — in short, if men were no longer men, as
they are, but angels, a social order, according to the
plan of the socialists, would not be impossible. But
such a supposition cannot be made in favor of
modern socialism.

2. Nay, we concede still more : we will not even

79

8o Socialism Impracticable.

dispute that a state organization for the regulation
and the distribution of all produce might be practi-
cable under a strictly absolute government. If we
could imagine an uneducated and undeveloped pop-
ulation, blindly following the dictates of a despotic
monarch, we might conceive most of the demands
of the socialists as practicable. In the ancient king-
dom of the Incas many of the dreams of socialists
were realized. But we must bear in mind that the
Inca, begotten as he was of the sun, enjoyed divine
honor and ruled with unlimited sway. Moreover,
the state of civilization in the ancient kingdom of
the Incas cannot be brought into comparison with
the circumstances of modern civilized countries.

Socialism on a democratic basis, implying the
absolute equality of all, is, at least in its entirety, a
thing impossible. We say in its entirety, or in as
much as it is conceived as one organized system ; for
whether one or a few demands taken singly may be
realized or not it is not our business to investigate,
since this one or these few demands do not consti-
tute socialism. For the rest, many of the socialistic
demands are essentially connected with one another,
so that one cannot exist without another. Such are,
for instance, the possession of all means of produc-
tion by the state, the systematic organization of
production, and the distribution of produce accord-
ing to some given common standard.

3. It is not our intention to maintain that social-
ism might not be realized by force. For what a
violent revolution, which sweeps over a country like
a hurricane, might bring about by the rule of terror
goes beyond all human calculation. Even the in-
credible has been realized in the world's history.

State of the Question. 8 1

We need only recall the English Revolution in the
seventeenth century and the French Revolution in
the eighteenth. What we would maintain is, that a
permanent socialistic order is impossible, because it
is in direct contradiction with the unchangeable in-
clinations and instincts of human nature.

4. In our refutation of socialism we shall confine
ourselves to that form which goes under the name
of social democracy or collectivism, which terms we
take to be synonymous. This form of socialism
comprises the most numerous and influential op-
ponents of the existing social order, and in the minds
of its defenders has most prospects of realization
because it embodies the most rational and the most
systematic plan of a social revolution. Besides, as
we have seen, the programme of the social demo-
crats of Germany and the collectivists of France very
nearly coincide with the platforms of socialists in all
other civilized countries. If, then, we have refuted
this most popular and widespread form of socialism,
the minor systems will of themselves fall to pieces.

5. Although we have already characterized social-
ism in its general outlines, yet it will be necessary
here to enter more fully upon one of its features
which is of the greatest importance for our present
inquiry — tJie appropriation of all means of production
by the state. It is erroneous to maintain that social-
ism would leave to separate communities or groups
of laborers the possession of the means of labor and
the organization of labor. That would be anarchism
or communism, but not socialism in its genuine
sense. The chief plank in the platform of modern
socialism is the abolition of what it calls the anarchy
of production, which it regards as the root of all

82 Socialism Impracticable.

social evils, and the institution of a systematic scheme
of production. But this end can be attained only
if the entire state is the proprietor of all labor ma-
terials, the distributor of labor and of its proceeds.
This scheme does not necessarily exclude the exist-
ence, in the socialistic order, of guilds or labor
unions, communes, districts, etc., as members of its
hierarchical order. But, in any case, a strict subordi-
nation of these various orders under one supreme
state authority is regarded as essential. If the
ownership of all labor means and, consequently, of
the proceeds of labor, and the organization of labor
itself would be left to separate communities, so that
they could produce what they chose and as much as
they pleased, our present competition would not be
abolished, but only suspended for a short time. In-
stead of the private capitalists we would then have
the communities as competitors. Therefore the
anarchy of production would remain in full force ;
and a mistake committed in the system of produc-
tion would only be the more detrimental, as it would
not then affect private individuals only, but entire
communities. One community could in that case,
by intelligence, industry, and favorable circumstances,
acquire immense riches, while another might fall into
a state of utter wretchedness ; and if every com-
munity should be industrially independent, and if
communal property should exist, would every in-
dividual of the community then be free to leave his
own community and betake himself to another?
And if so, is another community obliged to receive
and to tolerate strangers ? If such liberty and in-
dependence should not exist, we would have a con-
dition of perfect slavery ; if it did exist, then a sys-

State of the Question. 83

tematic control of labor would be impossible, since
it could not be ascertained at any time what labor
power would be at the disposal of the community.
The better-conditioned communities would be
deluged, while the less prosperous would be de-
serted.

Besides, the individual groups could not possibly
each produce all its own necessaries, and would be,
in consequence, obliged to enter into commercial
relations with the neighboring communities or with
foreign countries. Would this circumstance not
lead to endless quarrels between communities,
and produce a condition of universal warfare?
Would not then the more powerful, that is, the
richer, communities obtain political ascendency,
and thus submit the democracy to their own
aristocratic rule? Socialists sometimes speak of a
union w federation of the communities as a remedy
against such results. But if the several communities
were industrially independent of one another, and
possessed private property, such a federation would
be short-lived. As in ancient Greece, the different
communities would carry on a continual struggle
for the supremacy; and finally the weaker com-
munities would succumb to the stronger. And who
should divide the produce among the different com-
munities? Could such a division be made to the
satisfaction of all ?

An organization in which the several communities would
be industrially independent of one another and would pos-
sess communal property, to our knowledge, has never been
seriously thought of by modern socialists. And, in fact, the
great leaders of socialism do not favor such a division of the
national industrial system. According to their plans, the
socialistic state is to take the place of our modern states ;

84 Socialism Impracticable.

and the place of monarchs and cabinets is to be occupied
by a central committee, which is to direct the entire in-
dustrial system. True, Bebel and other socialists do not
wish to call this democratic magistracy a " government,"
nor do they wish their organization to be called a " state."
They believe that this central committee need only devise
the mechanism of production and set it in motion, and the
entire extensive machine will move spontaneously in the
most harmonious order. But, though we admit the pos-
sibility of such an improbable fact, it remains true that
socialists aim at a central organization of industry, corre-
sponding, at least in extent, to our modern states. Hence
Schaffle1 seems truly to have characterized socialism in the
following passage : " The only system of socialism imagin-
able is, and will continue to be, central organization, uni-
versal and exclusive collective production by the social
democracy." " The socialistic system of production, we
must always bear in mind, of absolute necessity forms one
compact organization. How the form of this unity should
be constituted, whether central or federal, absolute or demo-
cratic, ... we shall not now undertake to discuss; . . . but
the socialist must admit the necessity of one social system,
an organization embracing the entire scheme of production.
The anarchy of individual competition is, according to the
premises of socialism, the source of all evil — of all fraud,
disorder, inconsistency, usurpation, injustice in our modern
industry. Then and not ////then shall the socialistic state
be a reality, when it tolerates only collective capital or prop-
erty in the means of production."2

The following pen-picture of the socialistic state ready-
made has been drawn by Franz Hitze : "The state is the
only proprietor of all means of labor — of all lands, all
manufactories, all means of transportation, all labor tools,
all commerce, and perhaps also of all schools. At the head
of the organization stands a perfect democratic government
to be chosen by the people, say every two years; this gov-
ernment culminates in a committee, perhaps in a president.

1 Aussichtslosigkeit der Socialdemocratie, p. 5.
8 Quintessenz, p. 33.

Socialization of Productive Goods. 85

The committee has the administration of the entire state;
not only the political (legislative, executive, judicial), but
also the control of the entire production, of the entire
distribution, of the entire consumption ^at least in its more
general aspect, e.g., how much is to be deducted from con-
sumption in favor of production, etc.). Although labor
may be entrusted to the direction of subcommittees and
departments, yet there must always be one comprehensive,
supreme, and decisive authority. Under this central author-
ity stand the provincial departments and communal bureaus,
which discharge the same functions in behalf of their several
districts as the central committee in behalf of the state;
but all these must be subordinate to the supreme central
board." *

Similarly, Adolf Wagner:2 "If socialists would be con-
sistent, they cannot leave to the several communities com-
munal property either in capital or in land, and must have
recourse to an effective coercive control by one supreme
central authority for the estimation and application of the
national capital. Capital as well as land must be the prop-
erty of the entire state."

Rudolf Meyer3 characterizes as an essential feature of so-
cialism the demand that " production established on a social
basis be regulated and controlled by the state."

SECTION II.

THE ORGANIZATION OF LABOR.

I. Socialization of Productive Goods.

SOCIALISTS would make all means of labor, not
only the soil, but also manufactories, machinery,
raw materials, work-tools, the exclusive property of

1 Hitze, Kapital und Arbeit (rSSo), p. 286. Cf. Todt, Der Ra-
dikale deutsche Socialismus (1878), p. 218. Stern, Thesen, p. 8.

2 Grundlegung, p. 614.

3 Emancipationskampf des vierten Standes, p. 78.

86 Socialism Impracticable.

the entire community. One of their chief demands
is " the conversion of all labor materials into the
common property of society." 1 Only consumable
articles or such as are immediately destined for use
shall, as the remuneration for labor performed,
become private property. But here a grave mis-
giving at once presents itself. What are productive
goods and what are consumable goods ? Both these
kinds of goods may well be distinguished in the
mind. But as soon as we put the question in the
concrete, whether this or that article is productive
or only consumable, the difficulty becomes manifest.
Most objects may be productive and useful or con-
sumable, according to the end for which the pos-
sessor wishes to employ them. A garden, for
instance, is a useful object ; it yields the possessor
fruits, affords him the facility of taking exercise and
fresh air and enjoying the beauty and fragrance of
its flowers and the shade of its trees ; but the fruits
and vegetables which it produces may also be sent
to the market either in their primitive state or
prepared and preserved, and thus rendered of still
higher value. The same may be said of a house, a
horse, a carriage, or of any article of furniture or of
domestic use. Needles and thread and sewing-
machines are articles of immediate use in a family;
but they may also be used by the tailor or dress-
maker to make clothes for others, and thus they
become productive.2

Now, are all those articles of use to become com-
mon property? If so, every individual would be
dependent upon the community even in the most

1 Gotha programme (p. 21) ; Erfurt programme (p. 24).

2 Cf. Leroy-Beaulieu, Le Collectivisme, p. 13, sq.

Socialization of Productive Goods. 87

trivial matters. Domestic life with mutual services
would be a thing impossible. The only way out of
the difficulty would be that such objects of use
which might be also serviceable for production
would be left to individuals, with a legal injunction
not to employ them for productive purposes, but
only for their own private use. Such an arrange-
ment, however, would necessarily lead to most ex-
tensive and minute police supervision, and give
occasion to endless fraud. Let us suppose, for
instance, that an orchard is given to the father of a
family for his own use, with the strict injunction not
to use the fruit for any other purpose, but to deliver
the surplus to the public magazines. How much of
the fruit would be delivered to the community?
Would the possessor in that case deal economically
with the produce of his garden ? Would he keep it
in good condition and endeavor to improve it ?
Would he not be inclined secretly to donate or to
sell what he could not use for himself ?

Paulsen1 is of opinion that not only furniture, works of
art, ornaments, and books, but also houses and gardens,
might remain private property, " with all the effects peculiar
to private ownership — with the right to bequeath and to
donate, to consume and to preserve, to sell and to lend
them." However, this would manifestly demolish the entire
system of socialism. This freedom would enable private
individuals to acquire extensive property by the purchase,
inheritance, or donation of houses, gardens, and other rent-
able property, and finally to come to such wealth and inde-
pendence as to live on their income — which is hardly con-
sistent with the socialistic scheme. A socialist might urge
in favor of Paulsen's theory that houses, gardens, etc., might
be safely allowed to pass into private hands, because in a

1 System der Ethik, p. 716.

88 Socialism Impracticable.

system in which all parties are daily employed in production
and are forced to earn the necessaries of life no one would
care for further income. However, this supposition is untrue.
Wealth would also in a socialistic state lead to power and
influence, and would therefore not be looked upon with
indifference. And besides, what motives could influence a
man to work if he could live on his income ? Would it not
be necessary, then, to use violent measures in order to make
him work? But would not such force bring about the most
unbearable slavery? If socialism would pretend to succeed,
it cannot be satisfied with half-measures ; it must remain
consistent in its demands.

II. Mode of Determining the Social Demand.

Let us suppose for the moment that the distinc-
tion between consumable and productive goods were
sufficiently established, and that all means of pro-
duction were " socialized," or placed in the possession
of the community at large. Now it remains to
regulate the national production — a function which
the socialistic programme calls the " social regulation
of the collective labor." But such a regulation can
be effected only after the social demand has been
estimated ; for the satisfaction of the social demand
is the object and, at the same time, the standard by
which the extent of production is to be determined.
The social demand must therefore be established
by daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly statistical
estimates.

Some one may think perhaps that such estimates
would be superfluous ; that we might simply take
the present rate of consumption as the basis of the
socialistic production. But granting even that the
present rate of consumption could be statistically
established in detail, which, however, is hardly pos-

Mode of Determining the Social Demand. 89

sible, it would by no means serve as the standard of
production in a socialistic state, since it is the result
of the present state of property and production,
which is totally different from the socialistic state.
For it supposes, on the one hand, large incomes on
the side of capital and, on the other hand, small
incomes on the side of labor ; it supposes particularly
the wage or service system, and is based on the condi-
tion of private production. Therefore, as Adolf Wag-
ner 1 justly remarks : " The consumption of our day
is the result of the present distribution of income
and property, and of private rents arising from real
estate and capital. A statistic calculation, therefore,
based upon the present conditions would be insuf-
ficient." Much less can we suppose that the supreme
authority in the socialistic state would simply fix the
demand in regard to quality and quantity of the
products by peremptory order, and thus determine
the amount and kind of production. Such an action
would certainly be possible ; but, to say nothing of
the fact that it would be inconsistent with the
democratic organization of socialism, it would be in
itself unmitigated tyranny ; for freedom consists,
above all things, in the liberty to determine of one's
self the conditions of one's life in regard to food,
clothing, housing, recreation, means of mental im-
provement, etc. He who cannot use his free
choice in these matters, but must follow the dictates
of higher authority, is a slave though he may be
called a freeman. Freedom in the determination
of one's own wants is also the necessary condition
of all progress and culture.

1 Grundlegung, p. 617.

9O Socialism Impracticable.

Hence Schaffle1 himself remarks: "The liberty to de-
termine one's own wants i« certainly the first requisite of
all freedom. If the means of life and culture were deter-
mined by some external force, according to a certain stand-
ard, no one could live and develop according to his own
individual character. The very life's support of freedom
would perish. The question is, therefore, whether socialism
destroys the individual freedom to determine personal wants
or not. If it does, it is opposed to freedom, contrary to all
individuality, and therefore against morality, and without
any prospect or possibility at any time to be reconciled with
the indestructible instincts of man."

Let us suppose, then, that it was theoretically left
to the choice of each to determine his own demands
— we say theoretically, for practically this freedom
would be limited by want of sufficient income.
Also the factory laborer of to-day is theoretically
free to determine his own wants ; but practically
this freedom is greatly limited by his income. This
would be the case also in the socialistic state ; for
no one would have any other income than the pro-
ceeds of his labor. The socialists, it is true, do not
fail to hold out grand prospects to the laborer.
J. Stern2 assures us that in the socialistic state " all
would possess all things in abundance, to their
heart's content," and characterizes as " Philistines"
those who refuse to give him credence. However,
we are not inclined to believe in such a multiplica-
tion of loaves and fishes. But we shall have occa-
sion hereafter to submit this point to a fuller exam-
ination. Yet the chief representatives of socialism
themselves seem to entertain some misgiving in re-
gard to such a miracle. Bebel,3 at least, frankly

1 Quintessenz, p. 23.

2 Thesen, p. 28.

* Unsere Ziele, p. 30,

Mode of Determining the Social Demand. 9 1

confesses that " luxury will cease ;" but he adds,
"poverty and starvation also." When all shall have
nearly the same income, it is greatly to be feared
that the pittance will turn out very meagre. In an-
other passage Bebel1 says that the determination of
the demands will be an easy matter, " because ob-
jects of luxury which are nowadays purchased only
by the minority will come into disuse," and " the
community will have to decide in how far demands
are to be satisfied by new productions."

By these words are sufficiently implied, consist-
ently with the principles of socialism, that each one
will obtain only those necessaries which the com-
munity at large will agree to produce. Production
depends in its quantity and quality upon the articles
in demand. New demands also require new means
of production. Will every one, then, be at liberty
to order new objects for his own use which require
new industrial arrangements, and consequently in-
volve an increase of the common labor? But if the
community at large or its representatives should
have first to decide whether the wishes of individual
members should be gratified or not, the freedom of
determining the demands is thereby all but de-
stroyed.

Still more oppressive than this restriction of per-
sonal freedom would be the burden imposed upon
every family — for we suppose in the mean time that
in the socialistic state the family would still continue
to exist — to manifest all its wants in advance and
have them registered by the officials appointed for
this purpose. In order to know what and how much

1 Unsere Ziele, p. 31,

92 Socialism Impracticable.

of every commodity should be produced, and in
order to make out the plan of production, it must
first be ascertained what each one needs and de-
mands. Men and women, therefore, must report
all their wants and wishes, small as well as great, to
the respective officials at the bureau of consump-
tion, in order that they may, after the regular lapse
of time, be able to draw the desired articles from
the public magazines on presenting their labor
schedules. Not to make ridiculous suppositions in
reference to the socialistic state, we shall admit that
a certain supply of the more ordinary articles of
daily use is kept on hand, so that each one can on
his labor certificate draw the ordinary necessaries
from the public stores. This scheme, however, could
be employed only in regard to the most common
articles of daily use. Now, if our present system of
production, which always endeavors to be ready to
meet all demands, cannot have sufficient supplies
of all articles in demand, at all times and in all
places, this would be all the more impossible in the
socialistic state ; or such a state would necessarily
fall into the same error of which it accuses our
present system of production — that is, it would pro-
duce by haphazard a huge quantity of goods which
would lie idle and unconsumed in the state or com-
munal storehouse.

J. Stern, with surprising naivete, rates Schaffle as not being
capable of rightly imagining the socialistic commonwealth,
because the latter is of opinion that in the socialistic state
all labor and all consumption must be determined by a
standard of time, and that the social distribution of articles
of use is to be made by means of checks. We are of opin-
ion, however, that Schaffle has conceived more correctly of
socialism than did J. Stern. Schaffle's opinion is the logi-

Mode of Determining the Social Demand. 93

cal outcome of the socialistic principle that labor is the only
source of value and wealth, and that each one is to receive
the full proceeds of his labor. The exposition of Stern is
simply astonishing when he comes to describe the distribu-
tion of produce. Every one who can show that he has per-
formed a certain amount of labor has the most unlimited
right to any species of consumable goods in any quantity he
may choose to fix. He draws his clothing from the public
stores, he dines at the public hotel on what he pleases ; or,
if he prefers, he may dine at home in a highly comfortable
residence, which stands in communication with the public
hotels (by telephone, pneumatic tube, and by whatever other
inventions may be made in the mean time), whence he may
in the most convenient way [per tube ?] order his meals, just
as he pleases ; or, if he prefers, he may have them prepared
at home [by whom ?] ; or he may prepare them himself.1

Such a description may, in fact, gladden the heart of a
credulous socialist. With a minimum of work-time he may
enjoy himself to the full. He may imagine fountains of sack,
champagne, Bavarian beer, and cognac, from which every
working-man may quench his thirst at pleasure. He may
picture to himself tables laden with the most delicate viands.
He may imagine with what contempt he will look back
upon the days of brown bread and potatoes. Having eaten
and drunk to his heart's content, the working-man will go
to the theatre or concert, or will drive out in a fine equi-
page until, late at evening, tired of enjoyment, he will retire
to rest upon his soft couch. Stern, however, has forgotten
one thing. Who shall procure and prepare all these dain-
ties ? Who shall wait upon his socialistic lordship? Who
shall perform for him in the theatres and concerts ? Who
shall saddle or span his steeds, and act as his groom ? Stern,
it is true, revels in the prospects of great inventions in the
field of electricity. But does he really imagine that elec-
tricity will be made so serviceable as finally to prepare and
serve his dinner to the socialist, to fit out his residence for
him, and to give him a theatrical performance? And then,
how can all these good things be procured and prepared in

1 Thesen, pp. 12, 13.

94 Socialism Impracticable.

such quantities that each one with the minimum of labor
may obtain the maximum of enjoyment ? It is truly amaz-
ing how Stern rehearses all these foolish dreams with such
an air of earnestness. And yet, if any one refuses him
credence he does not hesitate to call him a Philistine —
which is, to say the least, a very cheap kind of argumentation.

It remains, therefore, that every family is obliged
to report all its necessities — if we except the most
common objects of daily use — to the officials at the
proper bureaus. Yet this cannot be supposed to be
a light burden. Now every one is at liberty to sup-
ply all his own wants at pleasure, either by his own
labor or by purchase, when and where and from
whomsoever he pleases, whether at home or abroad.
Thus he is enabled to conceal the secrets of his
household from the public gaze. Even business peo-
ple, laborers, physicians, druggists, etc., are bound to
secrecy, at least in their own interests. In the so-
cialistic state, however, every one could, by examining
the public registers, pry into the deepest secrets of
every household. For in the socialistic state there
would be no professions, bound to secrecy by their
own interests as now, and the public registers would
be open to the gaze and inspection of the sovereign
people.

Besides, we cannot overlook the fact that the
socialistic system would require a huge amount of
clerical work to determine the demands of an exten-
sive commonwealth. Socialists, however, point to
our modern syndicates, corporations, state industries,
etc., to show how easy it would be to determine the
wants of a nation. But they overlook the immense
difference between a single comparatively small
company, established for a limited purpose, and an

Division of the Labor Forces. 95

entire commonwealth made up of several millions of
human beings ; for, as Stern ' rightly remarks, social-
ism can be actuated only on a large scale. How
much writing, for instance, does a single census cost ?
How much labor is expended on making out the an-
nual estimates of a nation? And yet how simple
are these estimates compared with the consumption
of the individuals of an entire nation ! Consider,
moreover, the thousands of articles of daily use,
great and small, required for the physical and intel-
lectual life of a nation — for clothing, food, housing,
recreation, education, commercial intercourse — not
of a small community, but of a nation of many mil-
lions; for no one would be allowed to produce any-
thing for himself. Would that not require an over-
whelming amount of statistic labor, and a huge army
of bureau officials? And would not such a compli-
cated system of bureaucracy be subject to the great-
est blunders, which perhaps would prove fatal to the
production and to the existence of an entire nation?
And when we consider, moreover, that these legions
of officials would be bound by no private interest
to the faithful administration of their office, could
we expect a statistical result which might serve as
a safe basis for production ?

III. Division of the Labor Forces.

Let us suppose that the demands have been de-
termined by the central bureau on the basis of the

statistics received from the several communities or
»

provinces. Now comes the task of organizing the
national labor, or, as the Gotha programme has it, of

1 Thesen, p. 50.

96 Socialism Impracticable.

" regulating the entire labor according to a social
method," i.e., in the words of the Erfurt programme,
" for and by society." For this purpose a division of
the labor forces is necessary, or at least an accurate
knowledge is required of the number, ability, and
strength of the labor forces of which each com-
munity or district can dispose. For it is not pos-
sible to impose upon all provinces and districts the
same amount of labor without any regard to the
forces at their disposal. It may not be necessary
that the central committee or " council of produc-
tion" distribute the labor among the individuals of
the state. That task may be left to the several
communities. But it must necessarily determine
what and how much each district has to produce
and deliver to the community. But this task sup-
poses an accurate knowledge of the working forces
at the disposal of the several communities.

We shall suppose, however, that together with the
statistics of demand also an accurate estimate of the
number of laborers and the efficiency of the labor
forces of the different districts has been given.
Here a new difficulty arises. In order to distribute
their quantity of labor to each district or com-
munity, it is not sufficient to know the forces on
hand at the time the division is made. But it must
also be settled that all labor hands are to remain, at
least for a certain time, say a year, in the same
place. The question then arises whether in this
socialistic state the present freedom of migration
should be granted or not. Bebel,1 on his part,
advocates such freedom, but how is it possible to

1 Die Frau, p. 188.

Division of the Labor Forces. 97

organize labor if we suppose a constantly floating
population ? How can a community produce a
certain amount of work if perhaps within the time
specified for the performance of their task a large
number of the labor hands emigrate to other com-
munities? If, therefore, a systematic plan of pro-
duction is to be put in force the population must be
constrained to remain at least for a time in a certain
place, so that during this time the migration to an-
other community can be effected at most with the
permission of the authorities.

But even this measure does not remove the diffi-
culty. What would be the result if such a migra-
tion from one place to another would be permitted ?
We shall suppose that no one is constrained by law
to settle in any particular place, but that each one
is left free to choose the place where he wishes to
settle ; for this is an essential requirement of free-
dom. Now, what would be the result if in the
socialistic state such freedom of migration were per-
mitted ? We have reason to fear that roaming pro-
pensities, and what is vulgarly called tramping,
would become an epidemic in the socialistic state.
Nowadays the greater number at least of those
who are not utterly bereft of property are bound in
their own interest to choose a fixed residence, either
permanently or at least for some time ; and even
those who have no property must choose their
domicile in the place where they have a prospect of
earning their living. These motives, however,
would not exist in the socialistic state ; for each
member would know full well that every part of
the country, whether north, south, east, or west,
would be equally his home ; that he would have the

98 Socialism Impracticable.

same rights everywhere, and the same claims to
work and support.

Nor can it be answered that regard for children,
for the sick and aged, would induce the socialistic
citizen to choose a permanent residence ; for we must
bear in mind that the care of children, of the aged
and infirm, would be left to the state ; and conse-
quently it could not be any impediment to emigra-
tion. Or would the love of home, perhaps, attach
the socialist to his native soil ? We say the love of
home in the stricter sense ; for in the socialistic
state there would be no love of country in a
wider sense, as the socialist would be alike in his
own country in all places. His country is not his
community, or any fixed place, but at most the
entire state. Every socialist would have in every
community in the great commonwealth the same
right ; in his birthplace he would have no more
rights than in any other part. Why, then, should
he feel himself permanently attached to his birth-
place ? The foundation of the love of our birth-
place is based on the right of property. The love
of the place of his birth is generally not deeply
rooted in the penniless beggar ; his patriotism ex-
tends only to the confines of that place which
affords him shelter and support. Not until a family
has long lived and labored in the same place, until
it has a part of its history connected with the place,
until it has formed manifold ties of kindred and
friendship, does it become attached to the place of
its residence. But all this supposes private prop-
erty, and, as a rule, property in land — at least the pos-
session of a house or of a little holding, and a roof
which one may call his own. But all these elements

Distribution of Labor. Vocations. 99

are wanting in the socialistic state, in which every
foot of the soil is equally the property of all its in-
habitants. Therefore we are not surprised to hear
socialists repeatedly characterizing patriotism as
"prejudice" or even as " folly." l

IV. Distribution of Labor. Vocations.

After the demands have been determined and the
labor forces of each community have been ascer-
tained, it remains for the central bureau to distribute
their quantum of labor to the different workmen
and workwomen. The committee has to determine
who is to be employed in agriculture, industry,
mining ; who in the distribution of produce; who is
to be entrusted with its transportation, etc. It is a
matter of indifference whether the communal com-
mittee determine the position which each one
should occupy in the mechanism of production, or
whether the position of each is to be assigned him
by the authorities of the special departments of
industry. In any case, the central committee must
determine to which department of industry each
one is to be ascribed. Here again it must evidently
be supposed that the heads of the departments of
production have at their disposal a permanent pop-
ulation.

Can the distribution of the various works be
brought about on any other plan ? True, some
socialistic enthusiasts would leave the choice of an
occupation at the pleasure of each individual : thus
at the beginning of the movement Charles Fourier,

1 Cf. Meyer, Der Emancipationskampf, vol. ii. p. 116.

ioo Socialism Impracticable.

and recently Bebel1 and Stern.2 "Each one," says
Bebel, "determines for himself in what occupation
he wishes to be employed ; the great variety of the
various branches of labor will satisfy the most
various tastes. . . . The different branches and
groups of labor will choose their own superintendents
'to direct their various departments. These will be
no taskmasters like most of our present labor
inspectors and foremen : they will be comrades,
with this difference only, that they exercise an ad-
ministrative instead of a productive function." The
socialistic body can at pleasure devote itself "at
one season of the year to agricultural, at another to
industrial production."8 Not only in regard to
industrial, but also in regard to scientific and ar-
tistic studies shall every one have occasion for suit-
able variety.4

Yet all this is a visionary dream. If the quality
of occupation is left to the choice of each, all will
flock to the easiest, pleasantest, and most honor-
able employments. The industries are naturally
very unequal, and even socialism cannot remove this
inequality. To be a director or a member of the
supreme council of production is an easier occupa-
tion than that of a fireman, or of a collier, or of a
laborer in a chemical factory, who has to pass his
hours in broiling heat and fetid air; the office of a
committeeman would be more pleasant than that of
the individual who would be deputed to clean the
streets and sewers of the cities. Socialists will use
much printer's ink before they can print out of the
world the fact that many occupations in the social-

1 Die Frau, p. 154. 2 Thesen, p. 37, sq.

3 Die Frau, p. 188. 4 Ibid., p. 160.

Distribution of Labor. Vocations. 101

istic state would be irksome, laborious, dangerous,
and repulsive. If the choice were left to individuals
certainly sufficient forces would not be found for
the performance of such disagreeable work.

Bebel, however, tries to find a way out of the diffi-
culty. He is of opinion that street-cleaning, washing,
and other disagreeable kinds of work would in the
socialistic state be performed by mechanical means,
so that these occupations would cease to be dis-
agreeable.1 But even though we should make the
greatest allowances for modern and future inven-
tions, yet it would be puerile to imagine that all the
disagreeable features of labor could be removed by
machinery. There would still remain much dis-
agreeable work, which could be effected only by
immediate personal action. Besides, such machines
must be tended and directed. Does Bebel imagine
that the socialists could bring machinery to such
perfection that it would be necessary only to let a
machine down a shaft in order to hoist it laden with
coal? Experience teaches that industrial progress
has rather multiplied than diminished disagreeable
occupations. Though some kinds of distasteful
work are nowadays performed by machinery, other
still more loathsome ones have been created in
their stead. We have only to recall the number of
chemical factories which are a standing nuisance not
only to the laboring men, but also to whole cities
and country places for miles around. Besides, we
must bear in mind that it is a point of the socialistic
programme to utilize for the benefit of society all
manner of garbage and refuse, which will certainly

1 Cf. Stern, Thesen, p. 38.

IO2 Socialism Impracticable.

afford no very pleasant occupation for the laborer of
the future.

Unless we admit, then, that in the state of the
future unselfishness, self-devotion, and thirst for
self-abasement and suffering shall become general,
nothing else remains for us than to conclude that,
finally, the influence of authority, or the vote of the
majority, must force the laborer to condescend to
these disagreeable and humiliating avocations. But
such interposition of authority or of the popular
vote would evidently take away all freedom of
choice, and be a source of endless complaint and
discontent. And yet, according to the socialistic
programme, there should be " equality of rights "
and " equality in the conditions of life." But is it
consistent with this equality, either by command of
authority or by popular vote, to condemn one man
rather than another to such despicable and disagree-
able employments ?

V. Some Unsatisfactory Solutions.

Freedom in the choice of a vocation or state of
life is such an essential constituent of human liberty
that without it life is sheer slavery. It is natural,
therefore, that socialists and their advocates should
have sought out some means of securing this free-
dom in the socialistic system, despite its strictly
methodic arrangement. Schaffle is of opinion that
by a certain regulative system freedom in the choice
of a state might be made compatible with the social
organization of labor. He thinks that committees,
appointed for this purpose, could by the reduction
of pay stop the immoderate demand for certain

Some Unsatisfactory Solutions. 103

professions, and, on the other hand, by raising the
pay for other departments of labor attract larger
numbers of aspirants to the less desirable occupa-
tions. This proposition, however, does not seem to
suit the socialistic system ; for it supposes that the
pay for certain kinds of labor could be raised and
lowered at pleasure, as far as this would be service-
able to the labor organization. By such a measure
the socialistic theory of value would be thrown over-
board ; for the value of produce would no longer
depend on the necessaiy time consumed in produc-
ing it, but on external circumstances — from the
greater demand, or from the greater extent of social
wants. But would laborers tamely submit to the
reduction of their wages because perhaps in another
department of industry there is a lack of labor
forces? This solution of the problem would lead to
the result that the lowest and most disagreeable
occupation, in which the least intellectual labor is
required, would be paid best of all, and that the pay
would diminish in proportion as the labor would as-
cend in the scale of intellectuality and appreciation ;
for naturally the rush towards the higher and more
interesting kinds of labor would continue. Such
treatment of the laborer would not only be unjust,
but would crush every aspiration to higher culture
and higher social standing.

Edward Bellamy,1 in the fiction entitled " Looking
Backward," gives a most glowing description of the
future socialistic state, and endeavors to represent it
in all respects as practicable. He tries to meet our
difficulty by the regulation of the labor-time. If the

1 Looking Backward, chap. vii.

IO4 Socialism Impracticable.

number of candidates for any one calling should be
too great and for another too small, the labor-time
would be lengthened for the one and shortened for
the other. This, he thinks, would be a sufficient
means of reducing, on the one side, the number of
those who aspire to a higher calling, and, on the
other side, of increasing the number of those who
would be willing to be employed in less honorable
labor or professions. But if this should prove un-
successful, and too few laborers were found for any
department of industry, it would be sufficient, he
thinks, for the authorities to declare that such
neglected labor would be connected with special
honor, and that those who would engage in it would
merit the gratitude of the entire nation. For the
youth of such a socialistic nation, he thinks, would
be very ambitious, and would not allow such an
occasion of gratifying their ambition to go unused.
If, on the other hand, the rush of laborers to any
department of industry were too great, those only
should be chosen who would distinguish themselves
in that special industry.

This theory is characteristic of Bellamy's treat-
ment of the social question. He imagines humanity
almost free from all those passions and shortcomings
to which the children of Adam are now subject — a
generation full of zeal and devotion to the common
weal. But, we ask, are those human beings whom
we meet in social life really such a generation of
angels? Bellamy himself shows that they are not
when he depicts in the most exaggerated colors the
egotism of the present generation. We must deal
with men as they are and shall continue to be ; and
for such men Bellamy's system, has no use. Does

Some Unsatisfactory Solutions. 105

Bellamy imagine that those who have been long
employed in some work or profession will tamely
submit to have the labor-time lengthened indefi-
nitely, simply because there are many candidates
for that kind of labor ? And could a varying labor-
time, suited to the different industries, be thus
established by government? The demand for cer-
tain kinds of labor is not unchangeable, but may
vary according to the varying inclinations of men,
or according to the circumstances of time and place.
It is impossible by the regulation of the labor-time
to determine the number of laborers which are
required to produce the necessaries of an entire
nation without committing enormous blunders, and
thus creating dissatisfaction. This policy would also
have the necessary result of multiplying the number
of laborers employed in the lowest and most dis-
agreeable kinds of labor. Let us consider the
matter in the concrete. Mining, for instance, is
much more irksome, disagreeable, and dangerous
than the occupation of a gardener, an overseer, or
an artist. In order, therefore, to obtain a sufficient
number of workmen it would be necessary to reduce
the labor-time of miners to a minimum. What
would be the result ? The number of miners would
have to be increased in proportion, if raw materials,
coal, etc., should be forthcoming in sufficient quan-
tities. And what we say of miners applies also to all
inferior and undesirable kinds of work — for instance,
street-cleaning, stable-tending, chimney-sweeping.
The number of laborers in all those lower employ-
ments would have to be increased considerably to
make up for the shortness of the labor-time by the
increase of labor-power. Thus labor forces would be

io6 Socialism Impracticable.

withdrawn from the higher and more skilled occupa-
tions, and the entire tendency of society would be
backward and downward. The more degrading and
disagreeable any kind of labor would be the more
laborers it would employ. Besides, according to
Bellamy, all members of the social body should
have a share in the national product, so that a
stable-boy by fewer hours' work could earn as much
as an artist, a physician, or a lawyer, who would
have to labor the livelong day.

Bebel fancies he has found a way out of the
difficulty. In the first place, he has the most un-
limited confidence in the self-sacrifice of the
laborers of the future, who at the beck of their
directors will always be found ready voluntarily to
fill all the breaches that may be thrown open. If
this unselfish spirit, however, should not suffice, all
in their turn must undertake the disagreeable works ;
for " there will be no human respect and no stupid
contempt of useful labor." ' Nay, more ; he is of
opinion that the superior education of future society
will effect that finally every laborer, in his turn, will
be able to undertake all the functions of labor. " It
is not at all improbable that as the organization
progresses and the thorough education of all mem-
bers of the social body will advance, the different
functions of labor shall simply become alternate —
that, at stated intervals, according to a fixed routine,
all members of a certain department, without dis-
tinction of sex, shall undertake all functions." '
Bebel maintains the possibility of such a routine
at the outset only for the various functions within

1 Die Frau, p. 165. 2 Ibid., p. 154.

Some Unsatisfactory Solutions, 107

the same department of production. But at a later
stage of the development of his subject he gives
this routine system a much wider application. In
the socialistic state the gteatest regard will be had
for the natural craving of man for variety ; for all
will have an opportunity to perfect themselves in all
the branches of industry. " There will be no lack
of time to acquire great facility and practice in the
various branches of industry. Large, comfortable,
and perfectly equipped workshops will facilitate for
all, young and old, the learning of all trades, and will
introduce them to their practice as it were in play.
Chemical and physical laboratories, fully answering
the demands of science, will be at hand, and teachers
in great abundance. Then it will be manifest what
a world of force and power was suppressed by the
capitalistic system of production, or how these forces
and powers were at least crippled in their develop-
ment."'

These conclusions of Bebel are most logical, and
by this very fact they strikingly illustrate the
absurdity of socialism. To all disagreeable employ-
ments, therefore, for which laborers do not present
themselves voluntarily every member of society will
have to submit in his turn. Every one must in his
turn be street-cleaner, chimney-sweep, stable-boy,
etc. Let us picture to ourselves Messrs. Bebel and
Liebknecht, " without any human respect," when
duty calls them, submitting themselves to these dis-
agreeable avocations, which no other member of the
social body volunteers to undertake. What would
the gentlemen then say of the freedom left to man

1 Die Frau, p. 160,

IO8 Socialism Impracticable.

in such a system ? When Bebel assures us that in
the society of the future education, and particularly
technical training, would fit every member of the
social body for all functions and all industries, his
statement can hardly be said to deserve a refutation.
Let us only imagine what such industrial and tech-
nical ability supposes. Every individual in his turn
undertakes all social functions ; for instance, in a
factory he is director, foreman, fireman, book-keeper,
a simple laborer, and tender ; then he turns to some
other branch of industry or social calling — becomes
editor, compositor, telegrapher, painter, architect,
actor, farmer, gardener, astronomer, professor,
chemist, druggist. With such a programme, is any
thorough knowledge of anything possible ?

Paulsen1 justly characterizes the state of the future. " In
the society of the future," he says, "the self-same individual
will be letter-carrier to-day ; to-morrow he must perform
the duties of a post-office clerk; on the third day he must
act as postmaster-general — but why use a title ? — in short
he must undertake all that business which at present the
director of the national post-office has in hand — he must
prepare programmes for international post-office congresses,
etc.; and on the fourth day he must again return to the
counter ; on the fifth he condescends to be letter-carrier
once more, but this time not in the metropolis, but in some
out-of-the-way place ; for it is but meet that the sweets of
city life should fall to the lot of all in their turn. Thus it
would be also in the railroad department, in the mining and
in the military department, and in every common factory.
To-day the member of the socialistic state descends into the
bowels of the earth as a collier, or hammers at the anvil, or
punches tickets; to-morrow he wields the quill, balances ac-
counts, makes chemical experiments, draughts designs for

1 System der Ethik, p. 738.

Refutation of an Objection. 109

machines, or issues general edicts on the quantity and
quality of the social production, etc. In the naval depart-
ment there would be a similar variety : the office of captain
would fall to the lot of all in turn, as also that of steersman,
of machinist, of cook, etc. And thus also in the depart-
ment of state ; the various officials would exchange func-
tions: each one would in his turn be legislator, judge, com-
mander-in-chief of the army, and chief of police. But I
have forgotten where I was : in the state of the future there
will be no more wars, and no more thieves, and falsifiers, and
idlers, and tramps; consequently there will be no more
judges and soldiers necessary. Nor will there be any need
of laws, or of a state at all, in the land of Utopia, in which
the wolves will play with the lambs on the pasture and
eat grass ; when the ocea.n will be filled with lemonade and
ships will be drawn by tame whales; where envy, hatred,
tyranny, ambition, indolence, folly, and vanity will no longer
exist; where there will be only wise and good men — in the
millennium, for which it will not be necessary to devise laws
and ordinances. In this ideal state benevolence alone shall
reign supreme.

" There can be no serious thought of appointing or dismiss-
ing by ballot the directors who are to superintend the work
of the community according to the necessity and according
to the public opinion of the voters. Every one can easily
picture to himself the results of such elections if they were
to be carried out in the entire social body : the party strifes,
quarrels, contentions, cheating, public denunciation, which
would then ensue even in the smallest circles— even in the
supposition that there would be no diversity of material in-
terests and no ill-will — from the difference of opinion on
points of mere convenience, usefulness, and possibility
alone."

VI. Refutation of an Objection.

When it is objected to socialists that they will
finally by the ruling of authority have individuals
constrained to perform that work which the com-

1 10 Socialism Impracticable.

mon good demands, and that thus they take away
all freedom in the choice of employment, they raise
the contrary objection that now there is no freedom
in the choice of a vocation — that most people are
forced by necessity to seize upon the first employ-
ment which offers itself to them. Yet this objection
of socialists is one-sided and exaggerated. It is not
true that most people are not free to choose their
vocation or employment. The great mass of the
population has undoubtedly considerable freedom in
this regard. There are comparatively few who are
not free, on leaving school, to choose from a great
variety of occupations. An unlimited freedom in
the choice of a vocation does not exist and has
never existed ; nor is such freedom in the interest
of society ; for it is rather an advantage to society
if certain callings have permanence and constancy
and are generally filled by the same classes. A
family in which a certain business or trade has been
traditionally handed down from generation to gener-
ation has generally great advantages from a moral
and industrial standpoint over a family or individual
who is new in such trade or business. That at pres-
ent there are many cases in which, owing to extreme
poverty, the choice of a state in life is almost
illusory we shall willingly grant ; but this circum-
stance arises from the present unlimited competi-
tion, and from the disintegration of social life result-
ing therefrom — which we do not by any means un-
dertake to defend. From this fact, therefore,
nothing can be concluded in favor of socialism.

Finally — and that is the chief point — the neces-
sity which binds men to a certain kind of work in
the present state of society is only a moral one,

Impossibility of the Social Organization of Labor. \ 1 1

which is independent of the will of others, while in
the socialistic state this necessity would emanate
from the ordination of the social authority. Now it
is tJie interest of the individual which forces him to
embrace a certain profession and rightly to prepare
himself for the duties connected with it. In conse-
quence of this moral necessity the distribution of
the various avocations of life is made without law or
precept. Even the lowest and most disagreeable
employments generally find a sufficient number of
candidates, and commonly those who are employed
in them are satisfied with their avocation as long as
it yields them a sufficient means of subsistence.
The discontent so common among laborers in our
time is not with labor itself, but with excessive labor
and insufficient pay. If employers would better
the condition of the laborer, contentment and satis-
faction with their condition would soon return to
them if they were not disturbed by the visionary
theories of social agitators. But if laborers are
made to believe that all men have equal rights and
should enjoy equal advantages in life, it will be
found impossible to reconcile them with their con-
dition. This same imaginary claim to absolute
equality will prove the death-blow of socialism
itself, for the simple reason that it aspires to an
utter impossibility.

VII. Impossibility of the Social Organization of
Labor.

Another flaw in the socialistic system is the tacit
supposition that all kinds of work and all services
for the benefit of society may be reduced to one com-

1 1 2 Socialism Impracticable.

prehensive labor system. This supposition is errone-
ous. There will be always a large number of per-
sonal services which by their very nature cannot be
brought into any system, unless the world is to be
governed by strict military rule. Such are, for in-
stance, all those services which immediately regard
the care of the body — food, clothing, cleanliness,
cooking, housekeeping, washing, mending, etc. Shall
every one bring his coat to the " social " tailor to be
mended ? Must every one present himself to the
state's barber and hair-dresser for his toilet? Must
every one consign his linens to the public laundries?
We must bear in mind that the relation between
masters and servants, and, in short, the entire wage
system, will cease to exist in those days. And if
in a family, to crown the difficulty, the housewife
is sick or otherwise unfit for work, or happens to die,
do the socialists imagine that her services may be
substituted in the state of the future by mechan-
ical means? In answer to this difficulty they point
to our present system of boarding-houses and hotels,
where all parties at all times can be served accord-
ing to their wishes, and lack no earthly comforts.
Why, then, they say, could not all such personal ser-
vices be rendered in the socialistic state by means of
public kitchens and dining-halls, by public laundries
and workshops, on a large scale? To say nothing
of the disintegration of family life which would arise
from such a public boarding system, would it not be
downright slavery if every one were altogether de-
pendent upon public institutions for the satisfaction
of his personal wants ? Besides, we can hardly be-
lieve that such public boarding institutions, laun-
dries, etc., would give general satisfaction. Our

Impossibility of the Social Organization of Labor. 1 1 3

present hotel and boarding system is conducted on
quite a different principle. It consists of private in-
stitutions, whose proprietors or directors have the
greatest interest to attract guests and to satisfy, as
far as possible, all their reasonable wishes ; for if the
guests are dissatisfied with the treatment accorded
them and the prices they pay, they will go else-
where, and thus the hotel-keeper or landlord will
lose his customers, and his competitors will profit by
his loss.

The socialistic eating-houses, on the contrary,
would be public institutions conducted by public
officials, who would draw their necessaries from the
public magazines, and would have no competition to
fear. Would such public state cooks, butlers, waiters,
etc., be as eager to satisfy their guests as the offi-
cials of our private hotels? We doubt it very much.
The "social" cook or waiter would be independent
of his guests, and if the latter were dissatisfied with
his services he would have nothing to lose thereby.
Nay, we fear that such socialistic institutions would
be far behind our military kitchens. Let us sup-
pose, moreover, that all these officials would have to
change their offices from time to time, so that no
one would understand anything thoroughly — that
he who is cook to-day should be waiter to-morrow,
and laundry-man next day, and then butler, and
finally return again to the kitchen, but only for so
long a time as either his own caprice or public au-
thority would keep him in that office. But enough
of absurdity.

This difficulty did not escape the notice of Schaffle. He
is of opinion that socialists could leave such personal ser-
vices to private enterprise. Such a policy, however, would

1 14 Socialism Impracticable.

leave a wide gap in the principles of socialism, which would
finally remove every form of wage labor. If socialists
would leave personal services to private enterprise they
must tolerate at least the existence of paid servants. Thus
also many hands would be withdrawn from the national
production ; for persons who would devote themselves to
the performance of such private services could not be ex-
pected at the same time to take part in the social industry.
Besides, the equality of the conditions of life would be de-
stroyed if private services were permitted ; for thus it
would be possible for some such servants, by superior ability,
favorable circumstances, or ingenuity, to procure a large in-
come, while another private servant would either have a
miserable existence or be constrained to return to the com-
mon ranks of producers. In another place, however,
Schaffle * says that private enterprise would be altogether
excluded in the socialistic commonwealth, and that all
those laborers who would not take an immediate part in the
social production, as artists, for instance, would receive a
public salary. We may readily grant that the income aris-
ing from such personal services would never attain such
dimensions as that arising from the modern accumulations
of capital ; yet the general principle of socialism — that only
public labor paid by the state is to be tolerated — would thus
be subverted.

SECTION III.

PROFIT AND PROGRESS IN SOCIALISM.

I. Socialistic Dreams.

THE ringleaders of the socialists promise their
followers a golden age. Little work and much
enjoyment — that is the gist of socialism. This is
manifest particularly from Bebel's published works.

If we are to believe this popular leader, labor in the social-
istic state, owing to its great variety and the modern and

1 Quintessenz, p. 3.

Socialistic Dreams. 1 1 5

future perfection of mechanical inventions, will be mere
amusement. Most kinds of labor will be performed, as it
were, "in play." Besides, labor, owing to the systematic
regulations and the wise utilization of all means of produc-
tion, will be so productive that between two and three hours'
work per day will suffice for the perfect satisfaction of all
human wants. Egotism and the interest for the common weal
will be in harmony ; nay, these motives will exactly coincide
with each other in the socialistic organization.1 There shall
be no more idlers. The moral atmosphere itself will incite
every individual to "distinguish himself before all others."2
An unheard-of "world of forces and possibilities," which
have been suppressed by the capitalistic system of produc-
tion, will be made free.3 There will be no more political
crimes or other violations of law.4 Barracks and other
military institutions, court-houses, city-halls, prisons, will
then have a better use. The nations will no longer look
upon each other as enemies, but as "brothers." The age
of "everlasting peace" will come. The weapons of war
will be stored up in the museums of antiquities. Then the
nations shall advance to ever higher culture and civiliza-
tion.

Most particularly in those days, by means of irrigation,
draining of marshes and moors, and by superior means of
communication, agriculture will change the entire land into
huge gardens, and thus entice the people from the cities into
the country. As in the cities, so also in the country there
will be museums, theatres, concert-halls, play-houses, hotels,
reading-rooms, libraries, business offices, institutions of
learning, parks, promenades, public baths, scientific labora-
tories, hospitals, etc.6

In the socialistic state all the faculties of man will be
developed harmoniously. There will be " scholars and artists
of every description in countless numbers " in those days.6
Thousands of brilliant talents will be brought to their fullest
development — musicians, actors, artists, philosophers, not

1 Die Frau, p. 156. 9 Ibid., pp. 163, 164.

3 Ibid., p. 160. 4 Ibid., p. 179.

5 Ibid., pp. 177, 186. 6 Ibid., p. 161

1 1 6 Socialism Impracticable.

professional, of course (for all must take part in the social
production), but led on by inspiration, talent, and genius.
" An age of arts and sciences will come such as the world
has never seen before ; and the artistic and scientific produc-
tions will be in proportion to the general progress."1 Every
one will also have occasion to indulge his taste for variety.
He may make "a pleasure trip," visit foreign lands and
continents; he may join scientific expeditions and coloniza-
tion schemes of all kinds, which will then exist in great
numbers, if he is disposed to render a corresponding service
to society.2 In short, the human heart will lack nothing
which it can long for. The golden age of Saturn will return,
and all men shall be happy.

Like Bebel, so also Stern3 indulges his imagination to the
fullest extent in describing the socialistic paradise of the
future. Thus Bellamy's day-dreams have been seriously
dreamt before by waking German scientific socialists. But
dreams are an easy species of production for fertile imagina-
tions.

II. Industry and Economy in Socialism.

It is a great pity that the gap between dreams
and reality cannot be bridged. It is a stern fact
that in thickly inhabited and civilized countries the
earth is able to nourish its inhabitants only at the
price of hard labor and great economy in the use of
labor materials. Nor is there any lack of incentive
to such economy in the modern social order, as is
manifest. The interest of the individual, nay, the
very necessity of self-preservation and self-advance-
ment, urges most people to untiring and energetic
labor. In the race for gain we need, therefore, a
check rather than an incentive ; nor is there any great
extravagance to be observed in the use of labor

1 Die Frau, p. 185. 5 Ibid., p. 188. 3 Thesen, pp. 25, 34.

Industry and Economy in Socialism. 117

means — raw materials, work tools, machinery, fac-
tories, means of transportation, etc. On such econ-
omy depends to a great extent the success of all
modern enterprises. The great problem to be
solved in every private enterprise is how to produce,
with the least possible expense of labor, material,
and time, the largest quantity of the best and
cheapest goods. True, there will be always a num-
ber of bunglers and swindlers who will ply their
trade ; but such will not succeed in the long-run.
Fraud will be detected in ninety-nine cases out of
one hundred ; and if it sometimes succeeds it is
mostly by the fault of credulous or grasping dealers,
and of legislatures and governments which do not
use sufficient precaution and vigilance for the pre-
vention of deceit. But how far would diligence and
economy in the use of the means of production be
practised in the socialistic commonwealth?

Here again Bebel comes forward with the most liberal
promises. He is of opinion "that such an organization of
labor, based on perfect freedom and equality, in which one
would stand for all, and all for one, would awaken the
highest consciousness of solidarity, would beget a spirit of
joyous industry and emulation, such as is nowhere to be
found in the industrial system of our day. . . . And this
spirit would also exert its influence on the productiveness of
labor and the perfection of produce.1 Moreover, each in-
dividual and all together, since they labor for one another,
have absolutely the same interest that all products should
be not only as good and perfect as possible, but also should
be produced with the greatest possible promptness, either to
spare time or to gain time to produce new articles for the
satisfaction of higher claims." 3

1 Die Frau, p. 154.
3 Ibid., p. 154.

1 1 8 Socialism Impracticable.

However, such promises are but idle talk. For
what motive has the member of the socialistic state
to toil honestly day by day and to use the labor
materials economically? Only the smallest part of
the fruit of his industry belongs to himself. If we
imagine a million members of a socialistic common-
wealth, each one reaps one millionth of the proceeds
of his labor. And if he is idle, what does it matter?
Only one millionth of the production which he neg-
lects to bring forth is lost to him.

Even Schaffle,1 who has the greatest sympathy with
socialism, is of the opinion that "it is not sufficient, in the
case of the common production of a million laborers, that
producer A is conscious of the fact that his social income
depends upon the fact that the nine hundred and ninety-nine
thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine other co-operators
labor .as assiduously as he himself. This consciousness
alone cannot exercise sufficient control, does not, at least,
overcome the tendency to idleness and dishonesty, does not
hinder cheating the community in regard to labor-time, does
not thwart the sly and factious tendency to overtax one's
own personal production. Socialism would have to engage
each one's private interest at least so strongly for the
collective production as is the case in private production.
The socialistic state would have to reward the different
departments for extraordinary collective production and
punish them for industrial negligence; it would also have to
reward superior technical progress and remunerate individual
merit for the common weal ; it would have to direct the
numerous labor forces to that position in which they would
be most productive, not by command of authority, however,
but by the power of individual self-interest."

But in the social commonwealth there would be
no private interest. If the state would, according

1 Quintessenz, p. 31.

Industry and Economy in Socialism. 1 1 9

to Schaffle's opinion, confer distinctions and premi-
ums sufficient to urge the laborer to years of restless
toil, great differences in the conditions of life would
soon arise and bring envy, jealousy, and discontent
in their wake. Besides, such distinctions or premi-
ums cannot consist with the socialistic theory of
value.

We have reason to believe that socialism, instead
of producing abundance of all necessaries of life
with little toil, would soon be forced to lengthen
the present work-day in order to prevent famine.
According to Engel ' there were in Prussia in the
year 1881 to a population of 26,716,701 a total in-
come of $2,382,676,591.50. In this estimate, how-
ever, the income was set one fourth higher than it ac-
tually was, as the real estimate was $1,972,386,965.50.
Now, if this were equally divided among the popula-
tion it would leave $89.25 to each person ; and if we
take each family to consist of four members it would
leave each family an income of $357. This income,
however, is still higher than it would be in the
socialistic state in similar conditions; for since
there would be no taxes first a deduction would have
to be made, before the division would take place,
of all that would be required for the maintenance of
the productive system and for public institutions.
If, then, in our present state such great exertion of
power for production is attended with such small
income, we have reason to fear that in the socialistic
state the income would dwindle to insignificance.
Besides, we must bear in mind that the day's work
in the socialistic state would last only between two

1 Der Wert des Menschen.

1 20 Socialism Impracticable.

and three hours. Socialists, it is true, boast that
idlers who would take no part in the public produc-
tion would not exist in the socialistic state, as they
do now. By this assertion, however, they acknowl-
edge that freedom in the choice of employment
would no longer exist in socialism, but it does not
follow that the task of the individual would be
lessened. The socialists build their hopes upon a
false supposition — namely, that in the social order of
the future all men and women will be actuated by
the same zeal, industry, and economy.

Not a few socialists, and among them Schaffle, build
great hopes upon the mutual supervision and control
of the laborers. But such supposition is in many
cases impossible, especially if several should unite
together in a league of idleness. But where such
supervision would be actuated, as in workshops of
limited extent, it would necessarily lead to a regular
system of petty surveillance and espionage. We
have striking illustrations of the truth of this state-
ment in the case of the national workshops erected
in 1848 at the public expense at the suggestion of
Louis Blanc. In a tailor's shop there was introduced,
instead of payment by the piece, payment by the
day, in the hope that mutual supervision would in-
cite the laborers to diligence. But soon this mutual
supervision degenerated into an invidious and petty
espionage, and brought about so many bitter re-
proaches and quarrels that it was soon found neces-
sary to return to the old system of payment by the
piece in order to restore order and harmony among
the workmen.

Progress in the Socialistic State. 121

III. Progress in the Socialistic State.

If the necessary production would be impossible
in the state of socialism, progress would be much
more impossible. That private industry based on pri-
vate property is conducive to progress is a fact which
in our days is palpable. What wondrous progress
has been made within this half-century ! We need
only recall the invention of steamboats, railroads, tele-
graphs, telephones, phonographs, and all the recent
results achieved on the field of electro-dynamics.
Almost every day brings unexpected improvements ;
for every one is bound by his own interest to make
himself useful to his neighbor and, if possible, to
outdo his competitors. Therefore every one en-
deavors to invent more comfortable, useful, cheaper
appliances. He who offers the best and most useful
commodities at the lowest price takes the lead in the
race of competition.

What will become of this progress in socialism ?
Bebel with his usual boldness announces that in the
socialistic commonwealth all will " turn their atten-
tion to improvement, simplification, and acceleration
of the process of labor. Ambition to invent and dis-
cover will be aroused to the highest degree ; one
will try to outstrip the other in ideas and devices." '
Such phrases only bespeak the popular agitator.
All shall be intent upon inventions and discoveries.
But suppose that the socialistic grade of education
would enable all laborers to make inventions and
discoveries — which is very doubtful — where is the

1 Die Frau, p. 154.

122 Socialism Impracticable.

interest that could incite them to new discoveries
and inventions? And even though there were such
interest, where would the laborer find means to make
discoveries in the production of goods? Discoveries
and inventions, at least in the field of industry,
suppose the possession of productive goods where-
with one may experiment at pleasure. They sup-
pose, moreover, that one is thoroughly trained in
one department, which he makes the special study
of a lifetime ; consequently, that he is not directed
at pleasure by a superintendent or council of pro-
duction, or by the vote of the people, or by changes
from one branch of industry to another, and thus
made a bungler in every branch or trade. Schaffle1
speaks of schools or guilds of " investigators, artists,
scholars," which could be appointed by the social-
istic commonwealth. But Bebel, who formerly made
the same statement himself, denies the possibility
of such classes. All have to take an active part in
production ; but the remaining free time may be em-
ployed by each individual in his favorite study. We
have great reason to doubt that after the social pro-
ductive labor leisure would still remain for scientific
and artistic pursuits ; and we have still more reason
to doubt whether the members of the socialistic
body would employ this time in earnest and solid
study. We are inclined rather to think that they
would devote their leisure to idleness and enjoyment.
But let that pass. We shall suppose that a
socialist has made an important discovery. Now
it remains to utilize it practically. In the supposi-
tion of private property this matter is comparatively

1 Quintessenz, p. §,

Progress in the Socialistic State. 123

easy. If the inventor has capital, or if he succeeds
to enlist interested capitalists, his discovery will soon
make its way into the public, if it only proves effec-
tual. But the case is different in the socialistic
order. Here every inventor must either apply to
the supreme director of production, or must bring
his claim directly before the people and try to inter-
est the majority in his behalf. This, however, is
a matter of no slight difficulty. It is a difficult
matter to win entire communities for any Innova-
tion, particularly if individuals have no private
interest in the matter, but, on the contrary, thereby
only impose new labors upon themselves. If there
is question, for instance, of new machineries, heat-
ing and lighting apparatus, public buildings, high-
ways, canals, tunnels, etc., the innovation or im-
provement at the outset will cost a large portion
of the national labor. And if such an improvement
is once decided upon, it must at the same time be
introduced in the entire social body, in order that
the conditions of labor and life may be equal with
all. But will society in all cases tamely submit to
all such innovations? We fear that in the social-
istic state even such improvements as would cer-
tainly promise the greatest advantages from the
very outset would fail to be introduced ; and how
much more such inventions as require repeated and
costly experiments to test their efficiency?

Kleinwachter1 makes the following just remark on the
point in question : " In the socialistic state, in which the en-
tire production would be in common and systematically or-
ganized, the annual labor task of the entire population would

1 Schonberg's Handbuch, vol. i. p. 260.

124 Socialism Impracticable.

have to be fixed and distributed among the laborers by the
government. If, therefore, the government would find it de-
sirable for the national production to introduce some in-
novation, and thus to increase the annual task of labor ; and
if the people, not being able at once to realize the advan-
tages of such improvements, would consider the introduc-
tion of such appliances as superfluous, and would refuse to
undertake the additional work — the government would in
that case have no means to enforce its wishes against the
majority of the population ; and thus progress would be
necessarily retarded. In short, in a socialistic stata In-
dustrial progress would then only be possible when the
majority of the people would favor it ; and that, as all men
know, is a tedious process."

Besides, it is a circumstance not to be overlooked
that in our own present state of society inventions
and improvements of the same kind can be simul-
taneously introduced and tested, so that a thorough
trial of each innovation is possible ; and, finally, that
improvement or invention which commends itself not
only to the judgment of a few theorists, but has stood
a practical test, will survive as the fittest. Thus we
have a guarantee that the best and most useful ap-
pliances will finally gain the upper hand. Such a
thorough testing would be impossible in the state of
the future, as it would entail a considerable increase
of labor, which would hardly meet with a sufficient
remuneration, and of the utility of which the people
at large could with difficulty be convinced.

IV. Arts and Sciences in Socialism.

If bold statements were sufficient to produce
desired effects, socialism would not be opposed, but
highly beneficial, to arts and sciences. But if prog-

Arts and Sciences in Socialism. 125

ress on the field of industry would be, as we have
seen, greatly retarded in the socialistic organization,
it is natural to expect that progress in the arts and
sciences would be still more restricted. According
to Bebel's programme, in the socialistic organization
all without exception shall take a direct and " phys-
ical " part in production ; consequently, there shall
be no professional artists and scholars. This con-
clusion is strictly logical, but at the same time it
shows the absurdity of the socialistic system. For
it is manifest that under such conditions there would
be no possibility of real progress, for he who will
produce anything of considerable value on the field
of art or science cannot cultivate these, as a second-
ary object in leisure hours merely as an amateur, but
must devote himself wholly to them from his very
youth. But it must be borne in mind that socialism
will introduce all, without exception, at an early
stage of youth, into all branches of production,
since production is the proper end, the only ac-
knowledged purpose of the socialistic state. More-
over, those disagreeable employments for which no
laborers will volunteer must be performed by all in
their turn ; and all without exception are bound
their whole lives long to take an active part in pro-
duction. Can there be, under such circumstances,
any higher, scientific and artistic aspirations and
activity? Will there be any taste and enthusiasm
left for any branch of knowledge beyond physical
labor ? In our present state of society it is self-in-
terest and necessity that urge on the youthful stu-
dent to earnest labor. Upon his labor depends his
future existence, his advancement, and his final po-
sition in society ; whereas in the socialistic order

126 Socialism Impracticable.

scientific and artistic abilities can have no influence
upon a man's social standing. Remuneration will
be gauged solely by the amount of production of
one's labor, and not by those occupations to which
one may devote himself for his amusement in leisure
hours.

True, it sometimes happens in our day that men,
without any regard to external advantages, from
sheer love of science or art, undertake profound
studies. But this is the exception, not the rule ;
and even these few have generally received the first
impulse to study from bitter necessity or from self-
interest ; and they continue of their own pleasure the
studies or researches which in the course of time
have become for them a source of delight. But in
a socialistic state there would be no such incentives
for youth, since all, no matter what vocation they
may choose, shall have exactly the same conditions
of life.

But let us suppose that Bebel's demand — that all
should in the same manner " physically " take part
in the work of production — should be dropped as
impracticable by socialists ; that professional scholars,
artists, and scientists should be tolerated. By
avoiding Charybdis they strike upon Scylla. Thus
they would be forced to abandon the socialistic
theory of value, according to which all objects of
use are to be estimated by the amount of labor con-
sumed in their production ; and by labor is here
understood only such work as is either directly or
indirectly productive. But there are many arts
and sciences which have no value, or at least very
small value, for production. What does poetry or
music, for instance, contribute towards the national

Arts and Sciences in Socialism. 127

production ? What astronomy, philosophy, com-
parative philology, history, geology, etc.? And if
such labors should nevertheless be remunerated by
the community, what must be the standard by
which they are to be estimated ? But we must
return to this point when we speak of the division
of produce. Moreover, would not the unequal
treatment of employing one as a scholar, artist,
scientist, or professor, while another is forced to
undergo the disagreeable labors of the mine or the
factory, do away with the equal conditions of life
and give occasion to jealousy and complaints? If
socialists nowadays declaim against " unproductive
entities " and " drones," how much more would they
do so in the commonwealth of the future, when all
would.be conscious of their equal rights, and have
the decision of all things in their own hands? We
have already drawn attention to the fact that social-
ism would do away with freedom in the choice
of a state or profession in life. If the state would
appoint philosophers and scientists and artists, the
lack of this freedom of choice would be still more
keenly felt, for either it must be supposed that
artists and scholars would be so placed as to enjoy
respect, honor, and temporal emolument, and then
all would rush to these professions, or we must sup-
pose that they would have no distinction among
their fellows, that they would have no more prestige
than an ordinary shoemaker or tailor ; and in this
case there would be few candidates for the learned
professions. In any case, the authorities would have
to determine who should embrace the scientific and
artistic professions.

The freedom of the press in socialism deserves

128 Socialism Impracticable.

special consideration. True, we consider as objec-
tionable that unlimited freedom of the press which
allows all manner of outrage upon good morals,
religion, lawful authority, marriage, property, etc.,
to go unpunished. But no less objectionable in our
time, when different religious denominations are
actually tolerated and live peaceably together,
would be a censorship permitting that only to be
published which would have the approval of state
officials. But such a censorship would be necessary
in the socialistic state.

All labor materials are the exclusive property of
the community; consequently, also the printing-
presses would be public institutions. The com-
munity must supply the materials and the labor-
hands; it is also the task of the community to
decide on what is to be printed and what to be
put in the waste-basket. It would therefore depend
entirely upon the majority of the respective com-
mittee, or of the entire people, whether a literary
work, be its merit great or small, should ever see
the light or not. The socialists pride themselves
on this feature of their system. Bebel particularly
boasts that in the state of the future much of the
" rubbish " which in our time floods the book-market
would never be published. But manifestly such a
policy would destroy the good seed together with
the cockle. True, many books, and among them
much "rubbish," would remain unpublished; but
very probably many works also of real literary merit
would be suppressed, while much would doubtless
also see the light which would fully deserve the
name of " rubbish." For the question is, what is to
be regarded as rubbish ? One party considers a

A rts and Sciences in Socialism. 1 29

work as worthless, while another considers it valu-
able, and a third even admires it, and vice versa.
Very often, we fear, the most learned and scientific
works would be branded as rubbish while frivolous
and superficial productions would find their way
through the press. Let us suppose the case that a
citizen of the " state of the future " has gained the
conviction that the socialistic order of society is
highly unjust and absurd, and that he embodies and
substantiates his opinion in a scientific work or in a
series of popular essays. What will the socialistic
censors judge of his lucubrations ? What we say of
scientific subjects would be still more true of reli-
gious questions. In the state of socialism a party
would have it in its power to exclude from the press
every religious opinion which it would find incon-
venient. Or could authors appeal to the liberality
and tolerance of the popular majority? The masses
are generally more intolerant than individuals: the
latter must regard public opinion, the former need
not.

Like the printing-press so also the foundation
and support of all kinds of scientific and artistic
institutions — elementary, middle, and high schools,
— industrial schools, clinics, libraries, museums, etc.
would be placed under public direction ; so that
new establishments could not be set up except by
vote of the majority. In the erection of such insti-
tutions the first question which would present itself
to the consideration of the community would be the
increase of the national labor, which would never, or
at least not for many years, produce any industrial
fruit.

In socialism slavery would go even to greater ex-

130 Socialism Impracticable.

tremes. All buildings, particularly the great public
edifices, would be the property of the entire state,
which would dispose of them by means of its officials.
No public building could, therefore, be erected for
large assemblies, for divine worship, for public lec-
tures, etc., except with the permission of the majority
or of the state's representatives. But let this suffice :
so much is certain from what we have said, that in
the socialistic state the majority would have full
power to oppress and to enslave the minority at
pleasure. The latter would have no guarantee for
their freedom except the good-will of the majority,
or at the worst revolution, to which it might claim
the same right as the socialists of to-day.

SECTION IV.

THE DIVISION OF PRODUCE.

WE now come to that point of the socialistic
system of which socialists are particularly proud, and
which even commends itself to the sympathies of
many who are not socialists. Is it not an undeniable
fact, they say, that production is continually on the
increase, and yet that the greater number of men
live in extreme poverty ? Whence this phenomenon ?
They answer : from the unjust distribution of in-
dustrial produce.

We readily grant that in our present system of
distribution there is much that is defective and
needs improvement. There are not a few capitalists
who use the laborers unjustly for sordid gain ; not
a few who by dishonest speculation bring others'

The Division of Produce. 131

property into their possession. What we would
deny is this — that socialism, in all its schemes, has
devised a fairer and better method of distribution.

We shall suppose that the annual proceeds of pro-
duction in the socialistic state have turned out abun-
dant— although this supposition from our former re-
marks must seem improbable ; but we shall make this
supposition, to put socialism in the most favorable
light possible. From the total proceeds is first to
be subtracted the amount necessary for the con-
tinuation of production, for the improvement of fac-
tories, for the purchase of raw materials, etc. By
this deduction socialism will relieve the people of all
taxation.

The remainder of the proceeds is to be justly di-
vided among the individual members of the body
social. Now it is evident, as we have already shown,
that all will not be allowed to go to the public stores
and indiscriminately, without further control, to
take whatever they please. A certain clear, fixed,
and practicable standard must be adopted ; and the
question is, what this standard shall be. Socialism
has thus far devised not a single practicable standard.
Socialists themselves are on this point, as on many
other points of practical policy, somewhat reticent.
Marx advocates a distribution of goods according
to the amount of labor performed, at least in the
primitive state of socialism ; but in a more advanced
phase of society, he adds, each one will draw " ac-
cording to his reasonable wants." We shall now
proceed to examine successively the practicability
of the imaginable standards for distribution. We
can imagine only five such standards that might be
made the basis for the distribution of produce — the

132 Socialism Impracticable.

number of persons, the labor time, the amount of
labor performed, diligence, actual wants.

\. Number of Persons as a Standard.

A distribution of produce according to the num-
ber of persons of a given section or community has
not, to our knowledge, been advocated by any so-
cialist. And naturally so ; for to give the same
amount of the produce to each individual, whether
diligent or idle, skilful or unskilful, strong or weak,
whether his wants be few or many, would be evi-
dently most unfair. Such a system would set a
premium upon idleness and incapacity, and would
blast all industry in the bud.

The preceding lines were written before Bellamy's novel
came into our hands. The American fictionist of the future
has all produce equally divided among all in his socialistic
commonwealth. Each one, according to Bellamy, receives
at the beginning of the year an equal number of credit cards,
on which he can at all times draw an equal value of goods
from the public storehouses. In every community or ward
there is such a magazine, from which each one can draw
exactly what he pleases. The value of the credit cards,
given to all, is so high as considerably to surpass the ordi-
nary wants of an individual or family. If, however, in an
exceptional case the value of the card is not sufficient, each
one may receive credit in advance for the following year.
For, as Bellamy remarks, the nation is wealthy, and does not
wish its members to suffer any want. Economy is no longer
considered a virtue. No one is concerned for the morrow,
whether for himself or for his children, for the nation guaran-
tees nourishment, education, and comfortable support to all
its citizens, from the cradle to the grave. What luxury must
develop from such a state of things, in which economy is
no longer considered a virtue, may be easily imagined.

Number of Persons as a Standard. 133

How we are to judge of the assertion that the socialistic
state shall be so rich that there will be no more need of
economy, and that supplies will be equal to the demands in
all sections, we may easily conclude from what has been said
under a previous heading.

But how will Bellamy reconcile with justice the principle
that no regard is had for the amount of labor performed, for
capacity, and for the experience and skill of individuals ;
that the weakest, the most stupid, and most inexperienced
receive the same remuneration as the strongest, the most
skilful, and the most experienced? Bellamy, through his
mouth-piece Dr. Lecte, replies to this difficulty that the
amount of labor performed has nothing to do with the dis-
tribution of produce, since this is a question of merit ; and
merit is a moral idea, while the quantity of produce is mate-
rial. It would be a remarkable kind of logic, he thinks, to
endeavor to decide a moral question by a material standard.
The degree of effort alone is decisive in regard to merit;
whence we do not reward a horse because he bears a heavier
burden than a goat would bear. But if Bellamy would com-
pare man with a horse he must be consistent, and deny him
all merit also in view of effort. We do not attribute true
merit to a horse, no matter how great has been his effort ;
we do not feed him on account of his merits, but on account
of his usefulness: and thus too Bellamy must treat the man
of the future, if he wishes to be consistent.

But merit is a moral idea, and the quantity of labor pro-
duced is material. As to this quibble, Bellamy contra-
dicts himself; for the effort of the laborer is at least mainly
material or physical ; why, then, does Bellamy attribute merit
to it ? Or does he imagine that only the effort, but not the
product of labor or the labor performed, is a rational moral
activity ? But when we ascribe merit to labor performed
we do not understand by it the physical product of labor as
such, but the performance itself, in as much as it is a valua-
ble, creative activity. We reward, not the food which the
cook prepares for our use, but the labor of cooking, the
value of which, it is true, we determine by the product or
the food cooked.

When Bellamy asserts that merit is something moral we

134 Socialism Impracticable.

must distinguish between formal merit as such — that is, in as
much as it implies a right to a reward, and the title of merit,
— or the meritorious action. The former, it is true, is some-
thing purely moral, the latter is not. The title of merit is
an action which is useful for another; and whenever there
is not question of moral merit (with God), but of physical
merit (with man), its value is determined according to the
usefulness of the action performed for the benefit of our
fellowmen or society — always supposing, of course, that the
action is free and imputable to the subject.1

II. Labor-time as a Standard.

The labor-time alone cannot serve as a standard
for the distribution of the proceeds of labor ; for a
more skilful, better trained, more practised and
diligent laborer produces more in the same time
than one in whom these qualities are deficient.
Marx himself felt this difficulty. Therefore he
wished the value of every commodity to be deter-
mined not by the labor actually spent in its produc-
tion, but by " the socially required unit of labor-
time " — that is, by the time which is required " to
produce a given value under given normal social
conditions of labor, and with a given socially re-
quired grade of skill and intensity." Hence the
share of each laborer in the entire production would
have to be determined by the " socially required labor-
time'' But this standard of distribution could be
regarded as just only in the supposition of Marx's
theory of value. If the exchange-value of useful
commodities does not consist in the " crystallized "
labor contained in them, as Marx would have it,
but chiefly in the difference of their use-value, it

1 Looking Backward, chap. ix.

Lab or -time as a Standard. 135

is manifestly unjust not to regard the difference
of the labor-forces, but to treat all according to
the same norm. Let us suppose five laborers work-
ing side by side in a factory. How is the share of
the universal produce to be determined which
falls to the lot of each ? According to the " aver-
age of skill and intensity of the [social] labor."
But this average is a mere abstraction. Actually,
perhaps, none of the five laborers has the average
mean. Some have more than the average, some
less. It were folly to suppose that all possessed the
same skill and labored with the same intensity ; for
men differ greatly from one another. But why
should the laborer who possesses greater skill get
credit only for average skill, and why should he who
possesses less than the average skill get credit for
the skill which he does not possess?

Marx established the proposition, and the German social
democrats received it into their programme, that useful
labor — labor which produces exchange-value — is possible
only for society, not for individuals. However, though this
proposition should be conceded, it would not thence follow
that all the members of society produced the same amount
of labor and have the same right to remuneration ; but the
proposition itself is untrue, and has been established only
for the purpose of gaining some semblance of right to weld
individuals into the machine of public production. True,
useful commodities can gain exchange-value only where
several persons are living together and one possesses what
the other does not. But this supposed exchange-value
depends chiefly upon use-value; and to produce useful com-
modities personal ability is sufficient. Could not Robinson
Crusoe produce many articles for his own use? Or would
socialists only say that personal labor is in many respects
dependent upon society ? If so, logically speaking, labor-
power is no longer private property, but must be considered

136 Socialism Impracticable.

the property of the community ; and the community must,
consequently, have the right to dispose of such common
labor at pleasure, independently of the individual laborer.
But such an admission is contrary to the principle of social-
ism, which boasts to secure to every laborer the full proceeds
of his labor as his own personal property.

The standard of the division of produce by the
" necessary social unit " of labor-time is, therefore,
unjust and rests upon a false assumption. But it is
also impracticable. Here as in similar difficulties
Bebel ' cuts the knot and simply declares: " The
labor-time which is required to produce a certain
object is the standard according to which its social
use-value is to be determined. Ten minutes of social
labor-time in one object are exchangeable for ten
minutes of social labor-time in another object — no
more and no less."

Let us examine the matter practically. We wish
to know how much social labor-time is contained in
a peck of wheat. One farmer is diligent and skilful
and cultivates his field in a much shorter time and in
a much better manner than another. The distance
of the fields from the farmers' residences, the roads,
the farming implements, are different. But above
all, the produce depends to a great extent upon the
quality of the soil, upon the kind and quantity of
manure, upon the climate and the favorable or un-
favorable weather. The same soil will produce in
different years very different crops. Who, then, can
determine the socially required unit of labor-time
contained in a peck of wheat ? With the same
labor an acre of land in the fertile districts of the

Die Frau, p. 162.

Labor-time as a Standard. 137

Rhine will produce double or three times the crop
which by the same labor will be reaped on an acre
in the Harz Mountains or on the sandy plains of
Holland. One need only recall these difficulties to
perceive that the calculation of the socially required
unit of labor-time, even for a single commodity, is a
thing impossible.

But this is only the beginning of the difficulty.
What we say of wheat is true in like manner of all
kinds of grain and vegetables, nay, of all agri-
cultural products (meat, butter, cheese, eggs, etc.).
The same may be said of the produce of mines, fish-
eries, etc. Who could determine the unit of labor-
time for such products as change from year to year
and even from month to month ? We say nothing
of the fact that it is altogether an erroneous process
to determine the exchange-value of commodities by
the unit of time required for their production.

The difficulty increases if we admit that in the
society of the future there would be paid judges,
physicians, surgeons, artists, scholars, etc. Schaffle'
says : " Those who would render useful services to
the community as judges, magistrates, teachers,
artists, scientists, not in the production of physi-
cal goods, would have a share in the real products
of the national labor in proportion to the time spent
in useful services to society."

In proportion to the time spent in useful services
to society! Did Schaffle consider the difficulty of
calculating this proportion ? How is the time spent
in useful services to society to be determined in the
case of the scientist, the artist, and the philosopher?

1 Quintessenz, p. 5,

138 Socialism Impracticable.

Should all be treated in the same way ? Would all
physicians get the same salary, whether skilful or un-
skilful, experienced or otherwise? Are physicians
to draw a higher salary than philosophers, artists, and
teachers ? Again, shall an elementary teacher re-
ceive the same pay as a professor of an intermediate
school or of a university? It would be unjust to
treat them all alike. It would be an outrage to the
more gifted and industrious. But an unequal salary
would be contrary to the fundamental principles of
socialism, and be a constant source of jealousy and
contention. Nor could the present scale of payment
be retained in the socialistic state, for the present
system, as Schaffle remarks, would on the very first
day be upset by social democracy: and justly so,
for it is contrary to the equal rights of all ; and it
would of necessity lead to a social aristocracy, by
whatever name we might choose to call it.

III. The Labor performed as a Standard.

The labor performed is another standard accord-
ing to which, absolutely speaking, the distribution
of produce might be determined. This standard is
suggested by the Gotha programme and by the
leaders of the socialists. " Superior production,"
says Bebel,1 " will receive higher remuneration, but
only in proportion to the labor performed." As far
as the labor performed can be determined by the
socially required unit of labor-time, we have shown
it to be an impracticable standard. But if the labor
performed is gauged not only by the labor-time, but

1 Unsere Ziele, p. 30.

The Labor performed as a Standard. 1 39

also according to its intrinsic value, we must take
into consideration, besides the time, also skill,
strength, practice, and diligence. For upon all
these elements depend the quantity and quality of
the labor performed. But, particularly, the various
kinds of employment in which one is engaged for
the benefit of society must be compared with one
another, and estimated according to their relative
values. For all occupations have not, as socialists
pretend, the same value for society ; and, conse-
quently, they do not deserve the same remunera-
tion. No one, for instance, will consider the work
of a fireman or of a stable-boy of the same value as
the services of a physician or of a professor of a
university. But who will pretend to have sufficient
shrewdness and wisdom to determine from the «on-
sideration of the various factors the relative value
of each occupation according to the demands of
justice? How totally different are the opinions of
men on the relative value of labor! One considers
this occupation more valuable, while another attrib-
utes greater value to a different occupation. In
estimating the value of labor, much depends upon
subjective views. Could, therefore, a standard so
complicated, so totally dependent upon subjective
opinions, be employed for the distribution of prod-
uce without giving occasion to constant discontent
and discord ?

From what we have already said we may easily
conclude the impracticability of the standard of dis-
tribution proposed by Rodbertus,1 who suggests that
the proceeds should be distributed according to the

1 Der Normalarbeitstag, 1871,

140 Socialism Impracticable.

work [Werkarbeitstag], as distinguished
from the work-day [Zeitarbeitstag]. First, the labor-
time, or the normal working-day, must be determined
— that is, the time which a workman of medium
strength and with average exertion can permanently
work every day in a given industry. This time is
different in different branches of industry. If this
normal time is once found, then it remains to de-
termine the amount of labor to be performed — that
is, that amount which an average laborer, with aver-
age skill arid with medium diligence, can in a given
industry produce in the normal work-time. This
amount of labor Rodbertus calls the day's ^vork, as
distinguished from the work-day, or normal labor-
time.

The normal day's work in one branch of industry,
according to Rodbertus, has the same value as the
normal day's work in another, or, to put it more uni-
versally, the products of the same labor-time are equal
in value. If, for instance, a pair of shoes forms a
day's work in the shoe industry, and a table five
days' work in the joiner's trade, a table is worth five
times as much as a pair of shoes.

Attempts have been made to calculate the normal day's
work for different trades : even for the simplest labor such a
calculation is most tedious and complicated, and at best
only approximately correct. For, as Rodbertus remarks, it
is not sufficient to calculate the 'abor directly employed by
the shoemaker to make a pair of shoes, but it is necessary
also to reckon the wear of the shoemaker's tools in the
operation. But to make this latter calculation it is neces-
sary to know the value of all the shoemaker's instruments,
of the various materials that go to make a pair of shoes —
leather, thread, nails, hammer, awl — and, moreover, to cal-

The Labor performed as a Standard. 141

culate how many days' work might be performed by every
one of these instruments.

This standard of Rodbertus rests on the assump-
tion that the value of an object is determined solely
by the labor consumed in its production. But this
assumption, as we have proved, is false. Good wine,
fruit, timber, cloth, grain, or land, is sold at a higher
price than the same quantity of the same object of
an inferior quality, and that independently of the
labor consumed upon it. Why are fresh articles of
food — fruit, meat, butter, etc. — sold at a higher price
than stale ones? Every child can answer this ques-
tion. Should this simple question puzzle political
economists like Rodbertus? It is upon the useful-
ness of an object that its value chiefly depends.
This is also the case, as we have seen, with human
labor ; and therefore it is erroneous to make the
day's work in one branch of industry equivalent to
the day's work in another.

The normal day's work, moreover, is impracticable
as a standard of distribution because there are
many industries and activities to which it is impos-
sible to apply it. Who, for instance, can determine
the day's work of a physician, a scientist, a teacher,
an astronomer, an historian, a state official? The
tailor or shoemaker can preserve the product of his
labor and have it estimated by competent judges.
But what has the physician, or the scientist, or the as-
tronomer, or the magistrate, or the teacher to show ?
What can the husbandman present if drought, or
frost, or hail has destroyed his crops ? Or what can
the huntsman or fisherman exhibit if he happens to
be unsuccessful in his efforts? The standard of the

142 Socialism Impracticable.

day's work, moreover, is not consistent with the
social democratic system. For it would necessarily
bring in its wake considerable social inequalities.
Rodbertus himself acknowledges that the day's work
standard would introduce the piece-system into the
socialistic state. If, for instance, he who has per-
formed one normal day's work receives payment
equivalent to one, he who in the same time performs
two normal days' work receives double the amount.
But he who has performed only half a day's work
will receive but half pay. Now, it is not at all im-
possible that a strong, healthy, skilful laborer should
do twice or three times as much work as another who
is weaker and less skilful. Thus considerable social
inequality would soon arise, especially if the weaker
laborers would, by sickness or other accidents, be for
a considerable time prevented from work; for we
suppose that the man who works a whole day re-
ceives better pay than he who is sick and unfit to
work. Otherwise all incentives to labor would soon
cease, and the rush to the public infirmaries would be
universal. However feelingly the social democrats
may speak of " brotherly spirit " and devotion to the
common good, they cannot remove the dread of toil
under which a great portion of humanity labors.

IV. Diligence as a Standard.

Much less than the amount of labor performed
can diligence alone serve as a standard for the distri-
bution of produce. It would be simply unjust to
regard diligence as the only norm, since such a stand-
ard would put the more skilful and expert laborers
on the same footing with the slowest and most awk-

The Wants of Individuals as a Standard. 143

ward. Moreover, how could the diligence of each
one be accurately determined ? Bellamy thinks that
in a socialistic state each one should receive an
equal share of the produce if he only makes equal
endeavor, or produces that of which he is capable.
That is all easily said ; but who shall judge whether
each one does his best? How are we to form a
definite judgment upon such an endeavor? At best
only by an extensive system of mutual supervision
and espionage. But such a system would mani-
festly be an unbearable yoke, which the sovereign
people would on the very first day shake off with
indignation. And even if such control could be per-
manently established, how easy would it be to de-
ceive the overseers, especially if many laborers would
conspire against them ? What guarantee could an
overseer give who would be elected and might be
deposed at any minute ? Finally, if a laborer would
be found guilty of a lack of diligence, how much
then should be deducted from his wages, and who
is to judge of the amount ? We are of opinion that
if such a standard were introduced, our prisons,
which socialists would have abolished, would soon
have to be replaced by more numerous and capa-
cious ones.

V. The Wants of Individuals as a Standard.

It would be still more unjust and impracticable to
distribute the produce of labor according to " the
wants of individuals," or, as the Gotha programme
would have it, " to each one according to his reason-
able demands." What are the reasonable demands?
Not all have the same wants. Evidently it would

144 Socialism Impracticable.

not be wise to leave to individuals themselves the
decision concerning their wants. No one is an im-
partial judge in his own case ; and, besides, experi-
ence teaches that demands do not exactly coincide
with real wants.

The only expedient that would be left, therefore,
would be to appoint for each district a " committee
on wants," whose task it would be to determine the
real needs of individuals — for instance, how many
glasses of beer the workman of the future would
actually need. And as such a commission would
necessarily consist of Solons and Aristideses, who
would decide, not according to personal regards, but
only according to right and justice, and would always
hit upon the right thing; and as, moreover, the
socialistic brethren, as Bebel loves to characterize
them, would be animated with a " brotherly spirit,"
and would be content with little, this most delicate
problem would be solved to the greatest satisfaction
of all, and the social machinery would move in the
greatest peace and harmony.

SECTION V.

THE FAMILY IN THE SOCIALISTIC STATE.

THE family is without doubt the mainstay of
every well-ordered commonwealth. If socialism
destroys the family it must necessarily be looked
upon as the enemy of order, freedom, civilization,
and Christianity itself.

I. Marriage in the Socialistic State.

We can appeal to the explicit and unequivocal
evidence of its most indefatigable defenders for the

Marriage in tJfe Socialistic State. 145

fact that socialism leads to the dissolution of the
family. It will suffice to hear the evidence of a
single leader, who may be said to represent the
universal sentiment. Bebel writes of the position of
woman in the socialistic state as follows :

" In the choice of the object of her love she [woman] is
no less free than man : she loves, and is loved, and enters
into the marriage alliance with no other regard than that of
preference. This alliance is, as in olden times [?], a private
agreement, without the intervention of any [public] function-
ary. . . . Man should be free to dispose of the strongest in-
stinct of his nature as of every other natural instinct. The
gratification of the sexual instinct is just in the same way the
personal affair of every individual as is the satisfaction of
any other natural appetite. Therefore no one is obliged to
render an account of such gratification ; nor is any uncalled-
for intermeddler permitted to interfere in this matter.
Prudence, education, and independence will facilitate and
direct the proper choice. If disagreement, disappointment,
or disaffection should arise, morality [!] demands a disrup-
tion of the unnatural and, consequently, immoral alliance." *

Here we have unvarnished " free-love." What
remains of the bond of marriage if the parties,
following every whim and transient disaffection, are
free to separate and to enter upon another alliance ?
However, we do not mean to confine ourselves to
such explicit teaching of socialists. We shall en-
deavor to show that socialism of its very nature
demolishes the family, which is the foundation of
the social order. The basis upon which the indis-
solubility of marriage, and consequently the stability
of the family, chiefly rests is the education of
children. It is chiefly for this purpose that the life-

1 Die Frau, p. 192.

146 Socialism Impracticable.

long union of man and wife is necessary ; for
such a life-long union is generally required for the
suitable education of their offspring. Therefore
whoever wrests the education of their children from
the hands of parents, and makes it a function of the
state, thereby undermines the lowest foundation of
the family. But socialism puts education and in-
struction altogether into the hands of the common-
wealth. The Gotha programme, and, in short, social-
istic platforms generally, demand " universal and
equal education for all by the -state." On this point
too we shall insert the words of the great apostle of
socialism :

" Every child that comes into the world, whether male or
female, is a welcome increase to society ; for society beholds
in every child the continuation of itself and its own further
development ; it, therefore, perceives from the very outset
the duty, according to its power, to provide for the new-born
child. And, first of all, the mother who gives birth to and
nurses the child is the object of the state's concern. Comfort-
able lodging, pleasant surroundings, and accommodations of
all kinds suited to this stage of motherhood, careful treat-
ment of herself and of her offspring, are the first care of
society. It is self-evident that the mother must be left to
nurse the child, as long as this is possible and necessary.

"When the child waxes stronger his equals await him for
common amusement, under public direction. Here again
all things are supplied which, according to the perfection of
human knowledge and wisdom, for the time being, tend
towards the development of soul and body. Then comes
the kindergarten with its play-rooms ; and, at a later period,
the child is playfully introduced into the elements of knowl-
edge and human activity. Mental and bodily labor, gym-
nastic exercises, free movement on the play-ground and in
the gymnasium, on the ice field and in the natatorium ;
marching, fencing, and other exercises for both sexes, shall
succeed and relieve each other in due order. The intro-

Marriage in the Socialistic State. 147

duction to the various kinds of useful labor — to manufacture,
gardening, farming, and to the entire mechanism of produc-
tion— follows in due succession. But the intellectual de-
velopment, in the meantime, on the various fields of science,
is not to be neglected. Corresponding to the high grade of
social culture shall be the outfit of the lecture-halls, the edu-
cational appliances, and the means of instruction. All means
of education and instruction, clothing and food, supplied by
the community, will be such as to give no pupil an advantage
over another. The number and the ability of the teaching
body will be in proportion to the demands.

" Such will be the education of both sexes — equal and
common — for the separation of the sexes can be justified
only in those cases in which the distinction of sex makes it
an imperative duty. And this system of education, strictly
organized, under efficient control, continued to that stage of
life when society shall declare its youth to be of age, will
eminently qualify both sexes for all rights and duties which
society grants or imposes on its full-grown members. Thus
society can rest satisfied that it has educated members that
are perfectly developed in every direction." *

This is one of the midsummer night's dreams in
which Bebel's " Frau" delights to revel. How deeply
immoral such dreams are needs hardly to be stated.
The usurpation of education by the state, however, is
quite logical according to the principles of socialism.
If socialism will effect absolute equality in the con-
ditions of life, it must first of all remove the universal
source of social inequality, i.e., unequal education ;
and this can be done only by making education a
social concern. Such a regulation would, of course,
not hinder mothers from suckling their own children
and nursing them to a certain age. But mothers and
children would stand under the supervision of the
body social ; for there would be no servants in those

1 Die Frau, pp. 182, 183.

148 Socialism Impracticable.

days : physicians, surgeons, midwives, etc., would be
in the service of the body politic ; those able to
work would have to contribute their share to the
social production, while the care of those unable
to work would devolve upon the community. The
care and treatment of mothers in confinement and of
their children would, of course, be the concern of the
state. For if the care of the children were left to
the parents it might happen that childless husbands
and wives who have never been prevented from work
would attain to a much higher income than others
who would have to provide for the support of a
numerous family, and would thus be prevented from
taking an active part in production. And if the
father or mother should fall sick it might easily
happen that an entire family would be exposed to
starvation, while another would enjoy all comforts.
And how could a mother without the aid of servants
bring up and educate a large family, say of ten or
twelve children ? If, therefore, education were left
to the parents themselves it would be the duty of
the community at least to give an additional allow-
ance from the public produce for their support, and
to make provision for them in case of sickness. In
any case, parents would have to be relieved by the
state of supporting their children.

Therefore both the nourishment and the educa-
tion of the children in the socialistic state would be
a public affair, and would be directed and controlled
by the entire body social. Thus the chief duty of
parents, for the sake of which marriage has been
instituted as an indissoluble union, would cease to
exist ; for a life-long union and co-operation on
the part of parents is not required for the mere

Marriage in the Socialistic State. 149

propagation of children. And even though in the
socialistic state the indissolubility of marriage might
be sanctioned by law, yet the integrity of the family
would receive the death-blow. That which binds
husband and wife most closely is not only the actual
existence of offspring, but, above all, the conscious-
ness that upon their united efforts and care depends
the weal or woe of their children. Parents have to
provide for the support and the development of
their children ; upon their care, above all, depend
the life, the future position, the social standing, the
honor, and the eternal welfare of their children.
This consciousness urges them on to untiring ac-
tivity. What they have been able to accumulate by
their toil falls to the advantage of their offspring, in
whom they, as it were, continue to live, and who
naturally inherit the fruits of their cares and toils.

On the other hand, the consciousness that they
owe to their parents, not only their life itself, but
also their preservation, education, and position
in society — in short, all they possess — binds the
children in intimate love to their parents. They
know that their own fortune is closely linked
together with that of their parents. Hence there
exists between them mutual sympathy in joys and
sorrows. In socialism all this would cease to exist ;
for the entire social body would form but one family.
What would become of parental authority if children
knew that the state provided for their sustenance,
or, at least, remunerated parents for the care be-
stowed upon them ? Would not such a system
greatly promote rash marriages and facilitate di-
vorces, particularly as in the socialistic state marriage
would be a private concern ?

1 50 Socialism Impracticable.

II. Education and Instruction.

Let us now cast a brief glance at education and
instruction in the socialistic state. As we have
already stated, Bebel promises the most marvellous
results on the field of education. But now let us
imagine children collected in large numbers, sepa-
rated from their parents, first in the spacious play-
rooms of the kindergarten, then in the elementary
schools, where they are "playfully" introduced into
the elements of knowledge. Will this mass or
wholesale education lead to satisfactory results?
We might consider this possible if there were ques-
tion only of a military education for the formation
of future soldiers. But the universal application of
such a system is simply absurd. Nor can the social-
ist point to the example of present educational in-
stitutions in which children receive not only instruc-
tion, but also their board and education, as in the
family. For, to say nothing of the fact that the
children are generally not confided to such institu-
tions before the age of ten or twelve years, and that
the pupils of such institutions form but a small
fraction of the entire youth, while socialism would
have all children without exception confided to
public institutions for care and instruction — the
chief difference consists in this, that our present
boarding educational institutions presuppose and
are based upon the existence of home training.
The teachers of such institutions are the representa-
tives of parents, and are supported by the parents'
authority ; and if a pupil of such an institution
is incorrigible, he will, to his own disgrace and the

Education and Instruction. 151

shame of his parents, be expelled from the institu-
tion. But this would not be the case in the social-
istic state. Besides, we must bear in mind that the
socialistic youth would be brought up without
religion ; that there would be no separation of the
sexes. What, then, would be the result? Nothing
would remain but forcibly to lash the socialistic
youth into discipline and order. And yet how
ineffectual is physical force in education !

Yet we have not done with the difficulties arising
from the socialistic principles of education. It is
impossible that all children should be instructed and
educated in all branches of knowledge and industry.
Bebel repeatedly asserts the contrary ; yet it remains
simply impossible. Let us suppose that in a cer-
tain grade the instruction and education is the same
for all. Beyond this grade, however, a division
would have to take place. Not all have talents for
arts and sciences, and still fewer there are who have
abilities to take up all studies. Not all have suf-
ficient skill for the practice of all trades and indus-
tries. If, therefore, the socialists would not be
satisfied with a very low and insufficient grade of
culture, if they would not make shallowness and
superficiality universal attributes of education, they
must at a certain stage, say at the age of twelve or
thirteen, draw a line, and then allow their pupils
to devote themselves to some special branches
of knowledge or industry. But who is to deter-
mine the studies to be pursued? The simplest
system would be to submit the pupils to examina-
tions ; for a decision by the children themselves, or
by their parents, or by the verdict of a committee,
or by the vote of the majority, would be impracti-

152 Socialism Impracticable.

cable. The parents manifestly would in most cases
present their children for the highest grade of edu-
cation, as they themselves would not have to bear
the expenses and trouble. The children, on the
other hand, even the most gifted, if left to them-
selves, would in most cases be satisfied with little
learning. If the decision were left to a committee
it would lead to unjust treatment, and consequently
to endless complaints on the part of those parents
whose children would be slighted.

The promotion to higher studies, therefore, would
have to be made dependent on the results of ex-
aminations. But even this method would be at-
tended with serious difficulties. For either we
suppose that higher grades of education would be
connected with certain advantages in regard to
income and social standing, or we suppose that they
would not. If a higher grade of education has no
advantage for future life, very few would be found
to aspire to it. If, on the other hand, it should
have some influence upon the future social standing
of the possessor, it would result in a difference of
social position, and thus it would be all over with
the socialistic equality of the conditions of life.
Moreover, if social position is not made altogether
dependent upon the labor performed according to
the logical programme of socialism, but upon other
conditions, why should talent alone be taken into
account ? Do not also virtue, diligence, and the
descent from parents who have merited well of the
commonwealth deserve consideration ? Is it not
harsh, nay, unjust, to make the entire future of a
man's life depend upon a school examination in his
youth?

Communism in Religious Orders. 153

As the promotion to higher studies, so also the
decision what trade or industry each one should
embrace would have to depend upon examinations ;
for as in branches of knowledge, so also in trades
and industry an equal education of all is a thing of
impossibility. If too many candidates would pass
the examination for a certain branch of industry,
they would have to be applied by superior authority
to different industries. Therefore from the very
outset the body social would have to decide the
course of education and the future vocation of all
and each of its members, lest there should be too
great a rush to any profession, or to any particular
trade or industry. Socialism and freedom, therefore,
are incompatible with each other. The irreconcil-
able contradiction between freedom and the " abso-
lute systematic control " of the national labor is the
rock upon which socialism is destined to be ship-
wrecked.

SECTION VI.

SOME OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.

I. Communism in Religious Orders.

IT has been advanced in favor of socialism that in
the religious orders of the Catholic Church perfect
communism reigns. Why, then, should it not be
practicable in entire nations? There is, however,
between the Catholic religious orders and socialism
an impassable gulf. Socialism aims at the universal
introduction of a system which, of its very nature,
demands the greatest detachment from earthly

154 Socialism Impracticable.

things and an earnest struggle for perfection, and
which, consequently, in the present order of things
is suited only for the few. True, where men who
have renounced all earthly goods and have devoted
themselves to the service of God and of their neigh-
bor voluntarily unite in common .life, there may be
community of goods without discord and con-
tention ; nay, such a system in that case will prove
most beneficial, as it will relieve the individuals of
the care of providing for their earthly wants. But
as men generally are, few are able to rise to such a
height of self-denial, and to devote themselves en-
tirely to the pursuit of self-perfection and to the
divine service. It is, therefore, a vain and unreason-
able attempt to force men generally to renounce all
private property and to endeavor violently to weld
them together into a mechanical organization for the
purpose of production.

Socialists, it is true, plead that they demand not
the renunciation of property — that they only desire
to establish property upon the basis of justice.
These are fair words, but without meaning. He
who wishes to abolish private property in all the
materials of labor substantially abolishes private
ownership. Property in mere articles of use must
of its very nature be limited and is not sufficient to
secure to man the necessary freedom of action and
movement. If man is deprived of private property
in the materials of labor he is thereby made an in-
tegral part of the great public industrial machine, and
thus loses all independence of action. Of this fact
we believe every one who has carefully followed our
exposition will be convinced.

Moreover, the analogy can afford no argument

Modern Industrial Organizations. 155

for this reason — because in religious orders commu-
nism is based upon celibacy. Perfect poverty or
the renouncement of all temporal goods is incom-
patible with married life and with the duties which
married life entails. It is utterly irreconcilable with
family life in the present state of humanity.

II. Modern Industrial Organizations.

The objection taken by socialists from modern
industrial organizations seems to have greater force
at first sight. In the present social order it is no
rare phenomenon that eight or ten or even more
thousands of laborers are employed in one great in-
dustrial department ; and yet the industry proceeds
in the very best order. Nor do the labor ma-
terials and the machinery belong to the laborers
themselves, nay, not even to the directors of such
industrial establishments. Why should not such a
system be extended to an entire state?

This objection overlooks but one feature, and that
is the chief distinction between private industry and
the socialistic organization. This modern industrial
order in great manufactories and other industries is
based upon the strongest moral force. The owner of
the factory or industry, either in person or by means
of his representative, confronts the laborers as pro-
prietor and can rule them with almost absolute
power. The laborer, it is true, is not forced to offer
his service to such establishments, but if he wishes
to obtain from them labor and support he must
submit unconditionally to their ruling. The least
insubordination will be the cause of his dismissal.
Therefore force controls the modern system of

156 Socialism Impracticable.

production, but only moral force, to which each
one submits for his own interest. In the socialistic
state, on the other hand, the directors of the various
industries would confront the laborers not as propri-
etors, but as equals, possessing the same rights.
Each one has the same right as his neighbor to con-
sider himself a proprietor; nor can any one be dis-
missed ; but every one must get work, for the simple
reason that all private production is interdicted.
The practicability of large private industrial institu-
tions, therefore, does not prove the possibility of
extending the same system to entire states. The
arguments taken from the state industries which
have been attempted by some governments, such as
railroads, mail service, telegraphs, state mines, etc.,
do not conclude in favor of socialism. For in these
public industries also the state or its representatives
are considered as proprietors in their relation to the
laborers. Besides, the directors are personally in-
terested in such establishments, and are themselves
also under the influence of the same moral force as
the laborers. Every official as well as every laborer
must be satisfied with his position. There is no al-
ternative left him, if he wishes to gain his livelihood.
Besides, he may be dismissed at pleasure or his
salary may be curtailed if he gives any occasion of
complaint to his superiors. Even a slight murmur
on his part may suffice to deprive him of his posi-
tion. Hence it is that in our modern state industries,
wherever they have obtained, main force is the rul-
ing power, and all is directed by absolute control.
But in the socialistic state of the future, in which
every man is to be a sovereign and to receive his
position and his support from the community, in

The Modern Military System. 157

which, moreover, the final decision regarding the
control of labor, the division of produce, the ap-
pointment of officers, should be the business of the
people, the case would be quite different.

III. The Modern Military System.

Socialists endeavor to fetch an argument for the
possibility of their system from the organization
and direction of our huge modern armies. How-
ever, it is manifest that a strict military organization
with a criminal code including, as in Germany, for
instance, some thirty capital crimes, could not be
extended to an entire people and brought to bear
upon all phases of human life. The socialists at
least must lay aside their high-sounding phrases
about freedom and equality if they would impose
upon us such military discipline. However, we have
no reason to fear that such a scheme will so easily
be realized. For, what would become of an army if
the soldiers themselves had the chief command — if
they chose their own officers and generals, and de-
posed them at pleasure, and held court-martial over
them? Our modern armies are under the strictest
discipline and subordination. An army on demo-
cratic principles is chimerical. Besides, we must
bear in mind that socialism undertakes to organize
not only military activity, but the entire social life
—production, commerce, education, instruction, the
press, the arts and sciences, etc. If, then, even an
organization on socialistic principles is impracticable
for military purposes, how much more so for the
varied and more complex relations of social life !

158 Socialism Impracticable.

IV. Stock Companies.

Stock companies require special consideration,
since they have been advanced in favor of socialism,
for the reason that the capital invested in them not
rarely produces large gains, although it is almost
entirely alienated from the hands of the proprietors
or shareholders. Extensive enterprises in com-
merce, industry, mining, railroads, steamboats, etc.,
prove remarkably successful in companies or syndi-
cates, although their directors have no personal in-
terest in them.

However, the absence of personal interest is but
apparent in these cases. In regard to the subordi-
nate officials of such companies the same rule holds
as in the case of state industries — their own per-
sonal interest binds them to their position ; and the
higher authorities- or directors confront the laborers
in the capacity of proprietors. But the directors of
these syndicates have themselves large interests in
the enterprises and are, consequently, concerned for
their success and prosperity ; for in most cases
they are among the chief shareholders, and in case
the enterprises are prosperous they obtain larger
dividends. Even the subordinate officials of such
companies have in many cases a share of the profit.
Since, therefore, the directors have an almost abso-
lute power over the officers appointed and the la-
borers employed by them, it is easy to perceive the
reason why such companies, notwithstanding the
apparent sequestration of the capital, should realize
large profits.

For the rest, it is a well-known fact that stock

Stock Companies. 159

companies, compared with private enterprises, are at
a disadvantage in regard to economy in the use of
raw materials, machinery, etc. ; and, consequently,
such organizations with small capital are generally
unsuccessful. But in the case of large syndicates
with extensive capital these disadvantages are coun-
terbalanced by other advantages.1

Another essential difference between syndicates
and the ideal socialistic organization is the circum-
stance that in syndicates the directors are rarely
changed. The permanence of the directors is a nec-
essary condition for the success of large enterprises.
If the direction is often changed there is a lack of
unity and system, as the opinions of the directors
will rarely be found to coincide. What guarantee
would there be for this necessary permanence in the
direction of the industrial organizations in social-
ism, in which the directors would be chosen and
deposed by popular vote, and in which the principle
of the equal rights of all would admit of no perma-
nence in the administration of the more influential
offices? And if the supreme directors of industrial
organizations have not sufficient power in their
hands, and if their decision is made dependent upon
the consent of the majority, they are thus deprived
of the power necessary for the efficient administra-
tion of their offices.

1 Cf. Leroy-Beaulieu, Le Collectivisme, p. 348, sq.

CONCLUSION.

HERE we shall bring our investigation of socialism
to a close. We trust that the unprejudiced reader
who has patiently followed us throughout our exposi-
tion has gained the conviction that socialism, even in
its most rational and scientific form, is visionary and
impracticable. It is based on untenable religious,
philosophic, and economic principles, and, far from
leading to the glorious results held out by its ad-
vocates to the unlearned masses, would prove dis-
astcous to that culture which Christianity has pro-
duced, and reduce human society to a state of utter
barbarism. We may, therefore, conclude in the
words of Leo XIII., "On the Condition of Labor":
" Hence follows the untenableness of the principle
of socialism, according to which the state should
appropriate all private property and convert it into
common property. Such a theory can only turn
out to the grave disadvantage of the laboring classes,
for whose benefit it has been invented. It is opposed
to the natural rights of every individual human
being ; it perverts the true purpose of the state, and
renders the peaceful development of social life im-
possible." However, a permanent institution of
socialism is not to be feared, since it is in open con-
tradiction with the indestructible instincts and ten-
dencies of human nature.

160

Conclusion. 161

Yet no one can fail to see the grave dangers that
threaten society from the socialistic agitation. Now,
if we would avert those dangers we must co-operate
in earnest, each in his sphere, towards social reform.
A social life worthy of a human being must be
secured for even the lowest of the laboring classes.
For this end it is necessary not only that he receive
sufficient wages, but also that sufficient regard be
had for his life and health, and therefore that his
strength be not overtaxed by immoderate labor.
He must be treated not only with fairness, but also
with love and consideration. Finally, he must have
the assurance that in case of misfortune or ill-health
he be not abandoned or cast into the street. And
since in our days personal effort and private charity
are by no means sufficient, public authority must by
suitable legislation take the necessary measures for this
end. The social reform should aim at such a state
of things that the humblest laborer may entertain
a well-founded hope by industry and economy to
better his condition, and gradually rise to a higher
social standing.1

It may be objected that we have in this work
to some extent ignored the just claims of socialism.
However, if we consider what \& peculiar to socialism
as such in contradistinction to other social reform
movements — and this is precisely the point in ques-
tion— socialism cannot be said to possess any just
claims. If there is any justice in the claims of
socialists it consists in their opposition to the ex-
treme individualism of the liberal movement.

Man may be conceived under a twofold aspect —

1 Cf. Moral Philosophic, vol. ii. pp. 508-521.

1 62 Conclusion.

as a free and independent individual, and as a social
being, destined to live in, and form part of, society.
Liberalism — at least in bygone years — considered
man only under the first aspect. It regarded only
the individual and his independence, and almost en-
tirely disregarded his social relations. From this
standpoint liberalism tended towards the dismember-
ment of society, and proclaimed the maxim of laissez
faire as the highest political wisdom. A reaction
against this tendency was justified, and socialism, in
as far as it can be viewed as a protest against ex-
treme individualism, is perfectly right. But social-
ism, on its part, goes to the other extreme, consider-
ing only the social aspect of man, and disregarding
the freedom and independence of the individual. It
deprives the individual of his liberty, by making him
the slave of the community — a wheel in the great
and complicated mechanism of the social production,
— which is no less absurd.

As in most cases, here too the truth is mid-
way between both extremes. Both aspects of man
— the individual as well as the social — must be
taken into consideration and brought into harmony.
This is the unshaken principle from which all rational
attempts at social reform must proceed. The insti-
tution and promotion of co-operative organizations
are, as we have already noticed, the surest and best
means to reconcile the claims of the individual with
those of society, and thus to bring about harmony
between the conflicting elements.

The most important and indispensable factor in
the social reform, however, is the revival of Chris-
tianity among all classes of society. Legislative
measures may produce the external frame-work of a

Conclusion. 163

new social order ; but it is only Christianity that can
give it life and efficacy. Only on the ground of
Christianity can the hostile social elements be
brought to a reconciliation. Let us not deceive our-
selves : the wisest and most humane legislation will
never appease an indolent and grasping mass of
laborers. But whence is the laborer to appropriate
the virtues of industry and economy? Only from
the ever-flowing fountain of living Christianity.
How can the laborer be expected to bear the toils
and hardships that are inseparable from his state, if
he has been led to believe that all hopes and fears
in regard to the eternal retribution beyond the grave
are childish fancies, and that with this life all shall
come to an end ?

This revival of Christianity, however, must not be
confined to the laborer : it must also extend to the
higher and more influential phases of society. In
vain will our so-called "cultured classes" expect
Christian patience and resignation from the laborer,
while they themselves disregard the laws of Chris-
tianity, and publicly profess the grossest infidelity.
It sounds like irony if the rich preach economy and
self-denial to the poor, while they themselves indulge
in the most extravagant luxury and dissipation.
The wealthy must begin the social reform at home.
They must come to the conviction that they have
not only rights but also duties towards the labor-
ing man — duties of justice and duties of charity.
They must bear in mind that they have been ap-
pointed by God, as it were, the administrators of
their earthly possessions, which should in some way
serve for the benefit of all. They should remember
that the laborer is not a mere chattel, but a rational

164 Conclusion.

being, their brother in Christ, who, in the eyes of
God, is equal to the richest and most powerful on
earth. It is only this bond of Christian sentiment —
of mutual love and reverence between rich and poor,
high and low — that can bring about a reconciliation
of the social conflicts of our times.

And since the Church is the God-appointed guar-
dian and preserver of the Christian religion, and
since she cannot fulfil this task unless she is free to
exercise all her power and influence, we must de-
mand for the solution of the social problem the per-
fect freedom of the Church in all her ministrations.
Above all, we must insist on the full freedom of the
Church to exercise her saving influence on the
schools, from the common school to the university.
Liberalism has used the schools and universities to
alienate the nations from God. Socialism is adopt-
ing the same policy for the subversion of the social
order; and if the Church is to exert her influence for
the salvation of society in our day, she must do so
chiefly on the field of education.

THE END.

PRINTED BY BENZIGER BROTHERS, NEW YORK.

WORKS BY REV. JAMES CONWAY, S.J.

Handbook of the Christian Religion.

For the use of Advanced Students and the Educated Laity. By
Rev. W. WILMERS, S.J. From the German. Edited by Rev.
JAMES CONWAY, S.J. Second edition, with supplement. i2mo,
cloth, net, $i 50

". . . An excellent book. . . . For the students of our colleges and the
educated laity the work is most admirably adapted, exactly what was wanted.
On the questions which at the present time are claiming so much attention,
the creation of the world, the origin of man, etc., it is very satisfactory. . . .
We cheerfully recommend this work. . . ."—The American Catholic
Qua) terly Re-view.

Socialism.

By Rev. VICTOR CATHREIN, S.J. A Chapter from the author's
Moral Philosophy. From the German. By Rev. JAMES CONWAY,
S.J. I2mo, cloth, net, 75 cents.

The chief value of this little work is in the fact that it goes to the true
sources of socialism, whether considered as a scientific economic theory or as a
living social and political movement. There is nothing second-hand about it.
The author did not shrink from the toil of examining the most voluminous and
abstruse works as well as the ephemeral productions of the daily press and of
socialistic oratory. Socialists themselves give him credit for having inter-
preted their meaning and their aims more faithfully and accurately than some
of their own followers.

Sermons for the Sundays and Chief Festivals of
the Ecclesiastical Year.

With Two Courses of Lenten Sermons and a Triduum for the
Forty Hours. By Rev. JULIUS POTTGEISSER, S.J. Rendered
from the German by Rev. JAMES CONWAY, S.J. 2 vols., i2mo,
cloth, net, $2 50

"... The work will be a welcome library companion. Its doctrinal state-
ments are clear and well ordered; the points of the discourse clearly noted,
and the sequence of ideas set forth in a manner to impress itself easily ti pon
the memory. The English translation is skilfully executed, and rarely
reminds us of the idioms of the original." — The Lyceum, Dublin.

Rights of Our Little Ones;

or, First Principles on Education in Catechetical Form.
By Rev. JAMES CONWAY, S.J.

32010, paper, 15 cents; per 100, $9 oo

cloth inked, 25 " 15 °°

The same in German.

"The whole matter is put into a nutshell; and in the little book many
people will find set answers to questions they are forced to put to themselves,
especially just now, on an affair of such vital importance." — Weekly Register,
London.

Education.

The Respective Rights and Duties of Family, State, and Church
in Regard to Education. By Rev. JAMES CONWAY, S.J. Second
edition. I2mo, paper, 25 cents ; per 100, $15 oo

" One of the ablest, clearest, and fullest pamphlets on the education question
that we have read for many years." — Catholic Review.

The State Last.

A Study of Dr. Bouquillon's Pamphlet: "Education, To Whom
Does it Belong?" Third, revised edition. 8vo, paper, net, o 25

Benziger Brothers, New York, Cincinnati, Chicago.

iJ&d <L£

#1

'<£

>

Cathrein

276
Socialism exposed and refuted, .C35